Teams

Deuces

2022 18&Over Women Day League · 3.5

15 players · average NTRP 3.50 / NEW JERSEY REGION

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 →
Schedule8 played
2022-06-24vs MSU: Spring BreakersWon 10
W#2 DoublesAnita Singh / Michelle Hildenbrand vs Sharon Becker / Analia Erickson6-3, 6-2
2022-06-17vs It's 5 O'clock SomewhereWon 10
W#3 DoublesJeanne White / Anita Singh vs Cindy Ferguson / Laura Lembo6-2, 6-2
2022-06-15vs MSU: Spring BreakersLost 01
L#3 DoublesAnita Singh / Jeanne White vs Sharon Becker / Marie Carusone5-7, 4-5
2022-06-10vs GK FernsWon 32
L#1 DoublesTrudy Cederqvist / Jill Markovits vs Nancy Wilbert / Kimberly Sames3-6, 6-1, 0-1
W#1 SinglesCindy Carracino vs Soojan Shao6-3, 5-3
W#2 DoublesChristina Maurillo / Christine Hogan vs Ila Curzi / Grace Davitt6-3, 6-4
W#2 SinglesOzge Topcuoglu vs Laura Brasher6-4, 1-6, 1-0
L#3 DoublesMichelle Hildenbrand / Anita Singh vs Cathleen Ferns / Sheila McLean4-6, 1-6
2022-05-20Won 10
W#3 DoublesMichelle Hildenbrand / Anita Singh vs N/A6-0, 6-0
2022-05-13vs GK FernsWon 41
W#1 DoublesCindy Carracino / Daryl Caiola vs Nancy Wilbert / Torrie Kline2-6, 6-4, 1-0
W#1 SinglesTrudy Cederqvist vs Soojan Shao6-1, 6-1
L#2 DoublesDara Eisenman / Erin Ben-Hayon vs Kimberly Sames / Grace Davitt3-6, 7-6, 0-1
W#2 SinglesOzge Topcuoglu vs Linda Peters1-6, 6-2, 1-0
W#3 DoublesMichelle Hildenbrand / Jill Markovits vs Laura Brasher / Ila Curzi6-2, 6-1
2022-05-06vs MSU: Spring BreakersLost 01
L#3 DoublesJeanne White / Anita Singh vs Donna Nagel / Patricia Pike3-6, 2-6
2022-04-22vs GK FernsWon 41
W#1 DoublesAnne Marie Ramirez / Ginger Capuano vs Grace Davitt / Janet Ronan2-6, 6-4, 1-0
W#1 SinglesCindy Carracino vs Soojan Shao6-3, 7-5
W#2 DoublesJeanne White / Christine Hogan vs Morgann Loyd / Kimberly Sames6-3, 6-4
L#2 SinglesOzge Topcuoglu vs Kris Fortune6-3, 2-6, 0-1
W#3 DoublesMichelle Hildenbrand / Anita Singh vs Cathleen Ferns / Laura Brasher7-6, 5-0
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 standings for 3.5 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 5 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.

3.63
Ozge Topcuoglu
usually #2 Singles 100% · published
3.39
Cindy Carracino
usually #1 Singles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.33
Daryl Caiola
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.27
Jill Markovits
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
Anne Marie Ramirez
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
Carly Edelson
published 3.5
Christina Maurillo
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
Christine Hogan
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
Dara Eisenman
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
Erin Ben-Hayon
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
Ginger Capuano
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.15
Anita Singh
usually #3 Doubles 86%, also #2 Doubles 14% · published 3.5
Jeanne White
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Michelle Hildenbrand
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Trudy Cederqvist
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #1 Singles 25% · 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.

Anne Marie Ramirez + Jill Markovits3351% games+5.4% vs expected
Trudy Cederqvist + Jill Markovits5556% games+2.5% vs expected
Anne Marie Ramirez + Cindy Carracino11853% games+2.0% vs expected
Christina Maurillo + Daryl Caiola15657% games+0.5% vs expected
Cindy Carracino + Jill Markovits5358% games+0.2% vs expected
Dara Eisenman + Daryl Caiola12463% games−1.7% vs expected
Christina Maurillo + Jill Markovits5353% games−2.0% vs expected
Erin Ben-Hayon + Dara Eisenman8456% games−2.7% 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.

Ozge Topcuoglu
46W–22L career · 3 lines in 2022
<1%15%85%
3.63
3.5
Cindy Carracino
100W–59L career · 3 lines in 2022
<1%81%19%
3.39
3.5
Daryl Caiola
62W–34L career · 1 line in 2022
1%90%10%
3.33
Jill Markovits
93W–50L career · 2 lines in 2022
2%94%4%
3.27
3.5
Anne Marie Ramirez
64W–52L career · 1 line in 2022
not enough data
3.5
Carly Edelson
20W–10L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
3.5
Christina Maurillo
65W–47L career · 1 line in 2022
not enough data
3.5
Christine Hogan
34W–28L career · 2 lines in 2022
not enough data
3.5
Dara Eisenman
36W–20L career · 1 line in 2022
not enough data
3.5
Erin Ben-Hayon
17W–11L career · 1 line in 2022
not enough data
3.5
Ginger Capuano
13W–6L career · type S · 1 line in 2022
not enough data
3.5
Anita Singh
56W–34L career · 7 lines in 2022
12%88%<1%
3.15
Jeanne White
43W–31L career · 1 line in 2022
not enough data
Michelle Hildenbrand
7W–4L career · 3 lines in 2022
not enough data
Trudy Cederqvist
106W–53L career · 4 lines in 2022
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.