Teams

NITA S 75CWDf Five Star-Delgrosso

2024 NITA3 Summerz Combo Daytime · NITA Summer Daytime 7.5 Combo Women

14 players · average NTRP 3.75 / NORTHERN ILLINOIS

No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2024-07-31vs NITA S 75CWDa St Charles-ShieldsSplit 11
W#1 DoublesJennifer Lee / Jill Hare vs Jennifer Hazlett / Jennifer Shields6-4, 7-5
L#2 DoublesMary Ellen Young / Maria McTarnaghan vs Denise Call / Julie Moss3-6, 6-7
W#1 DoublesRhonda Williams / Elisabeth Sanders vs Meeli Patel / Dayna Murphy7-5, 6-0
W#2 DoublesLisa Simotes / Martha Skryd vs Puja Gupta / Wendy MacRi6-0, 6-4
W#1 DoublesMary Ellen Young / Rhonda Williams vs Catherine Chavez / Kathy Kelleher6-1, 6-0
W#2 DoublesCatherine Wasylenko / Jill Hare vs Maura Stoffer / Nicole Kirk6-7, 6-1, 1-0
W#3 DoublesMartha Skryd / Laura Maslowski vs Jeanne Gallo / Marissa Fasano6-3, 4-6, 1-0
W#1 DoublesJennifer Lee / Jill Hare vs Julie Akers / Lina Kamenev6-0, 6-1
W#2 DoublesZagorka James / Maria McTarnaghan vs Michelle Hejna / Diana Huber6-0, 5-7, 1-0
L#3 DoublesLaura Maslowski / Catherine Wasylenko vs Janee Matteson / Joni Sherman6-2, 1-6, 1-0
W#1 DoublesRhonda Williams / Mary Ellen Young vs Deborah Poe / Danielle Locke6-3, 3-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesZagorka James / Maria McTarnaghan vs Lisa Bierman / Sharon Hermanns6-4, 4-2
W#3 DoublesElisabeth Sanders / Laurie Delgrosso vs Robin Funk / Donna Myers6-4, 5-3
L#1 DoublesJill Hare / Jennifer Lee vs Jessica Arnold / Jill Odenbeck4-6, 5-7
W#3 DoublesZagorka James / Lisa Simotes vs Melissa Langley / Michelle Yacullo7-6, 2-3, 1-0
A tie can be incomplete. Tell us if someone is missing.
i
Grouped by tie — one fixture, several lines. A line shows only when a player on it is someone we have indexed, so an early-season tie for a newly-added team can look short. This also means the line count here will not match the header, which counts individual player appearances.
Flight standings7 teams · NITA Summer Daytime 7.5 Combo Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1NITA S 75CWDf Five Star-Delgrosso5114413126
2NITA S 75CWDa St Charles-Shields4214411122
3NITA S 75CWDc Rush Copley-Odenbeck/Arnold4210818161
4NITA S 75CWDe Oak Park-Myers/Locke3381022154
5NITA S 75CWDb Score-Michl/Moskowitz2461225167
6NITA S 75CWDd River Forest-Panton/Druckman2461228175
7NITA S 75CWDg Salt Creek-Jones/Olson1551326177

Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.

See the full flight, with every team’s record

ScoutingWhere each opponent usually plays

Signed-in extra: whether this captain plays strict strength order or mixes it up, from every doubles line they have put out. Create a free account to see it.

Roster averages 3.44 estimated across 10 rated players. No lineup is published in advance, so the column below is where each player has actually been used — a captain's habits are the best available forecast. Sign in and claim your record to see who you have played.

3.68
Catherine Wasylenko
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.61
Laura Maslowski
usually #3 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published
3.50
Mary Ellen Young
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.50
Martha Skryd
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.47
Zagorka James
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.44
Maria McTarnaghan
usually #2 Doubles 86%, also #1 Doubles 14% · published
3.40
Lisa Simotes
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.33
Elisabeth Sanders
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.28
Amanda Hanlon
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.16
Helen Tomacruz
usually #1 Doubles 57%, also #3 Doubles 29% · published 3
Jill Hare
usually #1 Doubles 89%, also #2 Doubles 11% · published
Laurie Delgrosso
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Patricia Nelson
published
Rhonda Williams
published
Established pairs

Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.

Mary Ellen Young + Martha Skryd8256% games+5.1% vs expected
Zagorka James + Catherine Wasylenko16656% games+4.5% vs expected
Laurie Delgrosso + Patricia Nelson17659% games+0.5% vs expected
Zagorka James + Jill Hare5254% gamesnot enough data
Helen Tomacruz + Jill Hare7082% gamesnot enough data
Zagorka James + Elisabeth Sanders2450% gamesnot enough data
Zagorka James + Lisa Simotes224 matchesnot enough data
Zagorka James + Maria McTarnaghan404 matchesnot enough data
Roster

Ordered by our estimated dynamic rating, which is why two players at the same published level are not tied — a published 4.0 says nothing about where inside the band someone sits. Lines played in this team’s season are shown beside each name.

4
Catherine Wasylenko
102W–88L career · 2 lines in 2024
8%91%1%
3.68
Laura Maslowski
60W–55L career · 5 lines in 2024
<1%20%80%
3.61
Mary Ellen Young
112W–107L career · 3 lines in 2024
49%51%<1%
3.50
4
Martha Skryd
87W–123L career · 2 lines in 2024
50%50%<1%
3.50
4
Zagorka James
290W–179L career · 3 lines in 2024
60%40%<1%
3.47
Maria McTarnaghan
89W–55L career · 7 lines in 2024
<1%67%33%
3.44
Lisa Simotes
47W–54L career · 6 lines in 2024
<1%78%22%
3.40
4
Elisabeth Sanders
61W–61L career · 2 lines in 2024
90%10%<1%
3.33
3.5
Amanda Hanlon
78W–71L career · 4 lines in 2024
2%94%4%
3.28
3
Helen Tomacruz
83W–59L career · 7 lines in 2024
<1%11%89%
3.16
Jill Hare
21W–7L career · 9 lines in 2024
not enough data
Laurie Delgrosso
23W–21L career · 1 line in 2024
not enough data
Patricia Nelson
86W–31L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
Rhonda Williams
17W–26L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data

Three percentages are where each player stands right now: the chance they are below their band, inside it, or above it, on the way they are playing this season. The number on the right is our estimated dynamic rating, which USTA never publishes. This is today rather than a forecast of December, because a forecast has to assume future matches and cannot know whether someone will even be offered them. Percentages are blank where a player has too few matches this season, or at a level where the model does not yet beat a base-rate guess; the estimate is a weaker claim than a probability and survives where those do not.

Not affiliated with or endorsed by the USTA. Ratings labelled as published are USTA year-end figures; anything we describe as an estimate is ours, not USTA’s. Match data is from USTA TennisLink.