Teams

RJTUtz/River Run

2022-2023 Racquets & Jackets Doubles League · Women Division B (3.0

13 players · average NTRP 3.50 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2023-01-11Won 10
W#1 DoublesPatricia Sharawy / Kimberly Haigney vs Annie Edenfield / Filomena Ferri4-6, 6-3, 1-0
2022-12-13vs RJSMcAfee-Griffin/JettonWon 10
W#1 DoublesKimberly Haigney / Phebby Benton vs Bibi Muraira / Ann Hughes4-6, 6-0, 1-0
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 Women Division B (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 3.33 estimated across 12 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.

3.75
Phebby Benton
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.73
Kimberly Haigney
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.58
Ana Endsjo
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.50
Stephanie Nixdorf
published
3.41
Nina Tracy
published
3.39
Patricia Sharawy
published
3.34
Meredith Ortiz
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.29
Erin MacAulay
published 3.5
3.21
Leanne Farrell
published
3.09
Terri Utz
usually #2 Doubles 57%, also #1 Doubles 43% · published 3.5
2.86
Cara Stanford
usually #3 Doubles 57%, also #2 Doubles 43% · published 3
2.86
Kelly Grathwohl
usually #3 Doubles 57%, also #2 Doubles 29% · published 3
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.

Phebby Benton + Kimberly Haigney5356% games+4.2% vs expected
Ana Endsjo + Phebby Benton9552% gamesnot enough data
Terri Utz + Meredith Ortiz10255% gamesnot enough data
Ana Endsjo + Kimberly Haigney3348% gamesnot enough data
Cara Stanford + Terri Utz314 matchesnot enough data
Terri Utz + Erin MacAulay314 matchesnot enough data
Ana Endsjo + Terri Utz123 matchesnot enough data
Cara Stanford + Kelly Grathwohl033 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
Phebby Benton
170W–72L career · 9 lines in 2023
3%95%3%
3.75
4
Kimberly Haigney
49W–33L career · 2 lines in 2023
4%94%2%
3.73
4
Ana Endsjo
112W–98L career · 4 lines in 2023
27%73%<1%
3.58
Stephanie Nixdorf
3W–7L career · no lines in 2023
51%49%<1%
3.50
Nina Tracy
2W–5L career · no lines in 2023
<1%76%24%
3.41
Patricia Sharawy
1W–5L career · no lines in 2023
81%19%<1%
3.39
3.5
Meredith Ortiz
123W–106L career · 8 lines in 2023
<1%89%11%
3.34
3.5
Erin MacAulay
9W–8L career · no lines in 2023
1%93%5%
3.29
Leanne Farrell
3W–0L career · no lines in 2023
5%93%1%
3.21
3.5
Terri Utz
105W–92L career · 7 lines in 2023
24%76%<1%
3.09
3
Cara Stanford
78W–55L career · 7 lines in 2023
<1%85%15%
2.86
3
Kelly Grathwohl
91W–118L career · 7 lines in 2023
<1%86%14%
2.86
3
Bridgette Ashbrook
1W–0L career · no lines in 2023
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.