Teams

Bosi/Herrick-Nuts for the Net

2022 One Doubles- Summer · 3.5 Women

4 players · average NTRP 3.50 / SOUTHWEST WASHINGTON

View scouting list →
Schedule8 played
2022-08-11vs KTAC-Washington-AcesLost 01
L#1 DoublesCharlet Herrick / Karen Abbott vs Kristi Gonzalez / Karen Fossum3-6, 6-7
2022-08-07vs Shanley/HunterWon 10
W#1 DoublesDebra Moody / Joyce Duerfeldt vs Claudia Shanley / Yi Zhao6-3, 6-3
2022-07-19vs Mills-Charlie's AngelsLost 01
L#1 DoublesCharlet Herrick / Karen Abbott vs Susan Mills / Maurie-Lynn Lawson3-6, 1-6
2022-07-12vs Shanley/HunterLost 01
L#1 DoublesKaren Abbott / Joyce Duerfeldt vs Kelley Hunter / Claudia Shanley2-6, 3-6
2022-07-08vs Clarke/Hewitt-Rowley SistersLost 01
L#1 DoublesCharlet Herrick / Debra Moody vs Kelly Hewitt / Wendy Clarke1-6, 0-6
2022-07-07vs MaggiWon 10
W#1 DoublesJoyce Duerfeldt / Debra Moody vs Holly Brazel / Kristine Mosher6-4, 6-2
2022-06-21vs KTAC-Washington-AcesLost 01
L#1 DoublesCharlet Herrick / Karen Abbott vs Kristi Gonzalez / Tiffany Washington3-6, 3-6
2022-06-11vs Mills-Charlie's AngelsWon 10
W#1 DoublesKaren Abbott / Joyce Duerfeldt vs Julie Wong / Jennifer Ivester6-4, 6-4
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 standings11 teams · 3.5 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1KTAC-Washington-Aces8080147
2SW-Russell-3.57171231
3Shirreff/Kunitsa5353656
4Clarke/Hewitt-Rowley Sisters5353763
5Mills-Charlie's Angels5353764
6Bosi/Herrick-Nuts for the Net35351081
7Norris/Lakey35351177
8Chan/Lomax-Flying Eagles35351284
9Shanley/Hunter26261389
10Cook-Double Trouble26261488
11Maggi17171494

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 3.08 estimated across 4 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.

3.17
Charlet Herrick
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.12
Debra Moody
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.06
Joyce Duerfeldt
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
2.96
Karen Abbott
usually #1 Doubles 100% · 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.

Charlet Herrick + Debra Moody61243% games−1.9% vs expected
Debra Moody + Joyce Duerfeldt161451% games−3.0% vs expected
Charlet Herrick + Karen Abbott183943% games−3.3% vs expected
Debra Moody + Karen Abbott3346% games−3.6% vs expected
Charlet Herrick + Joyce Duerfeldt3644% games−5.4% vs expected
Karen Abbott + Joyce Duerfeldt101247% games−6.3% vs expected
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.

3.5
Charlet Herrick
61W–125L career · 4 lines in 2022
9%90%1%
3.17
3.5
Debra Moody
71W–75L career · 3 lines in 2022
17%83%<1%
3.12
3.5
Joyce Duerfeldt
66W–71L career · 4 lines in 2022
33%67%<1%
3.06
3.5
Karen Abbott
76W–108L career · 5 lines in 2022
62%38%<1%
2.96

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.