Teams

RTC DURBORAW

2025 FW Ladies 18 Social Doubles Summer League · Saturday Ladies 3.0

11 players · average NTRP 2.90 / TEXAS

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2025-08-02vs TCU CARPENTERSplit 11
L#1 DoublesRuth Valtierrez / Mihaela Kruger vs Bonnie Sudderth / Caitlyn Bastable1-6, 4-6
W#2 DoublesNoel Cottrell / Charlene Fung vs Katherine Swift / Nanette Commerford6-2, 7-6
2025-06-14vs TCU CARPENTERLost 01
L#1 DoublesRuth Valtierrez / Sam Martinez vs Bonnie Sudderth / Caitlyn Bastable6-6
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 Saturday Ladies 3.0 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 2.75 estimated across 11 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.

3.10
Mihaela Kruger
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.05
Charlene Fung
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.91
Ildiko Lingvay
published 3
2.84
Ruth Valtierrez
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.78
JULIE PARKE
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.76
Beth Haugh
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.72
Sam Martinez
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.67
Linda Blair
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
2.52
Noel Cottrell
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.48
LINDA FEATHERSTONE
published
2.40
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.

Linda Blair + Charlene Fung5083% games+24.4% vs expected
Ildiko Lingvay + Mihaela Kruger4254% games+11.7% vs expected
JULIE PARKE + Linda Blair4450% games+2.9% vs expected
Noel Cottrell + Sam Martinez5453% games+1.9% vs expected
JULIE PARKE + Beth Haugh3351% gamesnot enough data
Noel Cottrell + Charlene Fung3251% gamesnot enough data
Sam Martinez + Charlene Fung404 matchesnot enough data
Ruth Valtierrez + Mihaela Kruger123 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.

Mihaela Kruger
19W–7L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%21%79%
3.10
3
Charlene Fung
35W–15L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%35%65%
3.05
3
Ildiko Lingvay
19W–12L career · no lines in 2025
<1%75%25%
2.91
Ruth Valtierrez
5W–10L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%88%11%
2.84
3
JULIE PARKE
33W–36L career · 1 line in 2025
2%94%4%
2.78
3
Beth Haugh
8W–11L career · 1 line in 2025
2%95%3%
2.76
Sam Martinez
14W–18L career · 1 line in 2025
5%94%2%
2.72
Linda Blair
18W–20L career · 2 lines in 2025
9%90%1%
2.67
Noel Cottrell
14W–18L career · 3 lines in 2025
45%55%<1%
2.52
LINDA FEATHERSTONE
11W–30L career · no lines in 2025
57%43%<1%
2.48
2.5
Dharmishtha Upadhyaya
10W–17L career · no lines in 2025
0%77%23%
2.40

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.