Teams

Alpha

Tri-Level · 3.0-3.5-4.0 Women

24 players · average NTRP 3.25 / ALLEGHENY MNTN.

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2026-08-23vs Glen Creek - Unfinished BusinessLost 12
W#1 DoublesNatalie Daffinee / Katie Conlon vs Pamela Jones / Dawn Beighey6-3, 6-2
L#2 DoublesTammy Santilli / Susan Wilkins vs Natalie Baron / Angelina Simoni7-6, 3-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesShirley Johnson / Paula Brethauer vs Carolyn Buongiorno / Carol Small2-6, 4-6
2026-08-09vs Glen Creek Level UpWon 30
W#1 DoublesNatalie Daffinee / Marie Stapinski vs Beth Lynch / Meredith Irwin6-4, 3-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesMarni Pastor / Tammy Santilli vs Amy Morrissey / Keerthi Ramanan6-4, 6-3
W#3 DoublesMelia Kaneta / Danielle Mrdjenovich vs Kelly Barki / Michelle Kret0-6, 6-4, 1-0
2025-10-05vs AcesWon 10
W#1 DoublesSonia Singh / Natalie Daffinee vs Mary Ehmann / Deanna Volk7-6, 6-0
2025-09-15vs AcesSplit 11
W#1 DoublesKatie Conlon / Natalie Daffinee vs Mary Ehmann / Beth Lynch6-4, 6-0
L#3 DoublesAlice Easly / Elizabeth Ubinger vs Jodi Hackett / Diane Costa4-6, 3-6
2025-08-17vs AcesWon 10
W#1 DoublesSonia Singh / Natalie Daffinee vs Mary Ehmann / Meredith Irwin7-6, 6-1
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 standings5 teams · 3.0-3.5-4.0 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Aces1021224
2Alpha1030227
3Play2Win000000
4Glen Creek - Unfinished Business0112426
5Glen Creek Level Up0103629

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 3.20 estimated across 21 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.

3.88
Emily Pallaki
published
3.70
Hannah Feldman
published
3.68
Brooke Marazza
published 3.5
3.64
Natalie Daffinee
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.51
Bonnie Demotte
published 3.5
3.51
Marion Hughes
published
3.28
Michele Fetting
published
3.28
Lauren Fox
published
3.22
Katie Conlon
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.20
Lisa Spiess
published
3.19
Marie Stapinski
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.19
Marni Pastor
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.16
Sonia Singh
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.14
Paula Bennett
published
3.05
Tammy Santilli
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.02
Susan Wilkins
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.79
Paula Brethauer
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Danielle Mrdjenovich
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.75
Nicole Fratangelo
published
2.73
Melia Kaneta
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.67
Sarah Larkin
published
2.63
Elizabeth Ubinger
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Shirley Johnson
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.

Katie Conlon + Natalie Daffinee5456% games+14.7% vs expected
Hannah Feldman + Lauren Fox14262% games+13.6% vs expected
Sonia Singh + Bonnie Demotte3259% games+7.3% vs expected
Tammy Santilli + Susan Wilkins191352% games+4.0% vs expected
Shirley Johnson + Paula Brethauer7250% games−6.1% vs expected
Lisa Spiess + Marion Hughes71246% games−7.7% vs expected
Elizabeth Ubinger + Paula Brethauer3247% gamesnot enough data
Sonia Singh + Tammy Santilli224 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.

Emily Pallaki
70W–24L career · no lines in 2026
<1%81%19%
3.88
Hannah Feldman
41W–22L career · no lines in 2026
7%91%2%
3.70
3.5
Brooke Marazza
14W–2L career · no lines in 2026
<1%10%90%
3.68
Natalie Daffinee
27W–31L career · 5 lines in 2026
<1%<1%>99%
3.64
3.5
Bonnie Demotte
52W–19L career · no lines in 2026
<1%48%52%
3.51
Marion Hughes
18W–24L career · no lines in 2026
48%52%<1%
3.51
Michele Fetting
23W–18L career · no lines in 2026
2%92%6%
3.28
Lauren Fox
50W–29L career · no lines in 2026
94%6%<1%
3.28
Katie Conlon
16W–17L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%6%94%
3.22
Lisa Spiess
34W–39L career · no lines in 2026
8%91%2%
3.20
Marie Stapinski
29W–17L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%8%92%
3.19
Marni Pastor
10W–6L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%9%91%
3.19
Sonia Singh
80W–61L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%12%88%
3.16
Paula Bennett
9W–14L career · no lines in 2026
15%84%1%
3.14
Tammy Santilli
41W–28L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%37%63%
3.05
Susan Wilkins
34W–25L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%46%54%
3.02
Paula Brethauer
28W–34L career · 1 line in 2026
2%91%7%
2.79
3
Danielle Mrdjenovich
1W–0L career · type S · 1 line in 2026
not enough data
Nicole Fratangelo
4W–13L career · no lines in 2026
4%93%4%
2.75
Melia Kaneta
16W–14L career · 1 line in 2026
5%92%3%
2.73
Sarah Larkin
13W–21L career · no lines in 2026
12%88%1%
2.67
3
Annette Seelhorst
15W–14L career · no lines in 2026
18%82%<1%
2.63
Elizabeth Ubinger
22W–40L career · 1 line in 2026
not enough data
Shirley Johnson
68W–76L career · no lines in 2026
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.