Teams

Laabs/Walko

2022 Anne Arundel Combo · Anne Arundel Combo 6.5 Women

17 players · average NTRP 3.54 / MARYLAND

View scouting list →
Schedule7 played
2022-09-16Won 20
W#1 DoublesSherry Orebaugh / Jennifer Coady vs N/A6-0, 6-0
W#3 DoublesKimberly Walko / Anh Le vs N/A6-0, 6-0
2022-09-08vs FreemanWon 10
W#3 DoublesKimberly Walko / Anh Le vs Kim Taft / Joy Epstein6-1, 6-1
2022-09-01vs Martin 6.5Won 30
W#1 DoublesStephanie Riley / Marie Sokoloff vs Cassandra West / Donnita McMillan6-2, 6-2
W#2 DoublesTamara Hayes / Lisa Walsh vs Holly Hill / Carolyn Noe6-3, 6-1
W#3 DoublesKimberly Walko / Xenia Baranova vs Marilyn Moore / Heather Dodd7-5, 6-2
2022-08-27vs Martin 6.5Won 20
W#2 DoublesMarie Sokoloff / Laura Laabs vs Heather Dodd / Jennifer Mason6-3, 6-2
W#3 DoublesTamara Hayes / Elle Shanahan vs Rebecca Sellassie / Mary Corbiere7-5, 7-5
2022-08-25vs FreemanWon 21
W#1 DoublesXenia Baranova / Stephanie Riley vs Lisa Seamancrawford / Yulin Henry6-0, 6-2
L#2 DoublesLisa Walsh / Tina Rohm vs Sorina Eftim / Tracey Ernst7-5, 3-6, 0-1
W#3 DoublesJade Moore / Meg Daniels vs Stephanie Freeman / Erica Wahlig6-0, 7-5
2022-08-15vs FreemanSplit 11
L#1 DoublesSherry Orebaugh / Marie Sokoloff vs Karen Yannone / Tracey Ernst6-0, 2-6, 0-1
W#3 DoublesKimberly Walko / Anh Le vs Christina Ravekes / Deborah Kontor6-7, 6-1, 1-0
2022-08-06vs Net-asha's GirlsSplit 11
W#1 DoublesStephanie Riley / Marie Sokoloff vs Vicky White Hall / Valerie Ciccone6-2, 6-3
L#3 DoublesTina Rohm / Meg Daniels vs Natasha Rones / Simone Saunches3-6, 4-6
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 standings for Anne Arundel Combo 6.5 Women have not been collected yet. Where we have them we show every team in the flight ranked, with this team highlighted. The crawler is still filling in older seasons and flights.

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 3.35 estimated across 17 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.

3.91
Xenia Baranova
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.66
Jennifer Coady
published
3.64
Tina Rohm
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.55
June Means
published
3.49
Sherry Orebaugh
usually #1 Doubles 83%, also #2 Doubles 17% · published 3.5
3.48
Gia Jang
published 3.5
3.43
Marie Sokoloff
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.35
Jade Moore
published 3.5
3.34
Lisa Walsh
published
3.26
Laura Laabs
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.22
Kimberly DeMay
published
3.20
Cindy Keegan
published 3.5
3.19
Abby Jacobson
published 3.5
3.18
Elizabeth Jacobson
published 3.5
3.14
Kimberly Walko
usually #3 Doubles 78%, also #2 Doubles 22% · published 3.5
2.99
Meg Daniels
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.98
Tamara Hayes
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
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.

June Means + Gia Jang3355% games+9.1% vs expected
Kimberly Walko + Sherry Orebaugh1448% games+4.8% vs expected
Kimberly Walko + Laura Laabs2347% gamesnot enough data
Laura Laabs + Tina Rohm3253% gamesnot enough data
Laura Laabs + Marie Sokoloff4164% gamesnot enough data
Kimberly Walko + Tina Rohm314 matchesnot enough data
Kimberly Walko + Marie Sokoloff224 matchesnot enough data
Marie Sokoloff + Xenia Baranova404 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
Xenia Baranova
204W–68L career · 2 lines in 2022
<1%75%24%
3.91
Jennifer Coady
14W–6L career · no lines in 2022
11%89%<1%
3.66
4
Tina Rohm
130W–100L career · 2 lines in 2022
15%85%<1%
3.64
June Means
8W–7L career · no lines in 2022
36%64%<1%
3.55
3.5
Sherry Orebaugh
110W–54L career · 6 lines in 2022
<1%52%48%
3.49
3.5
Gia Jang
11W–7L career · no lines in 2022
<1%56%44%
3.48
3.5
Marie Sokoloff
277W–199L career · 4 lines in 2022
<1%71%28%
3.43
3.5
Jade Moore
17W–9L career · no lines in 2022
<1%87%13%
3.35
Lisa Walsh
24W–31L career · no lines in 2022
<1%88%11%
3.34
3.5
Laura Laabs
177W–206L career · 3 lines in 2022
2%94%3%
3.26
Kimberly DeMay
3W–2L career · no lines in 2022
4%94%2%
3.22
3.5
Cindy Keegan
7W–16L career · no lines in 2022
6%93%1%
3.20
3.5
Abby Jacobson
3W–4L career · no lines in 2022
7%92%1%
3.19
3.5
Elizabeth Jacobson
29W–30L career · no lines in 2022
8%91%1%
3.18
3.5
Kimberly Walko
160W–162L career · 9 lines in 2022
14%85%<1%
3.14
3
Meg Daniels
79W–60L career · 2 lines in 2022
<1%54%46%
2.99
3.5
Tamara Hayes
78W–73L career · 2 lines in 2022
56%44%<1%
2.98

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.