Teams

Koeppen-Double Trouble

2025 One Doubles-Summer · 3.0 Women

5 players · average NTRP 3.20 / SOUTHWEST WASHINGTON

View scouting list →
Schedule7 played
2025-08-06vs Baumgardner-Doubles or NothingWon 10
W#1 DoublesViolet Clerget / Nancy Koeppen vs Sharon Abegg / Michele Capestany7-5, 3-6, 1-0
2025-07-30vs Quesada-Court QueensWon 10
W#1 DoublesTina Mapili / Violet Clerget vs Julie Quesada / Jennifer Stockstad6-1, 4-6, 1-0
2025-07-22vs Walz/BrittWon 10
W#1 DoublesCindy Stoneback / Brianna Arboine vs Maileen Walz / Denise Costanti6-2, 6-3
2025-07-19vs Gerritzen/Marston - AndiamoWon 10
W#1 DoublesBrianna Arboine / Cindy Stoneback vs Shannon Gerritzen / Erika Sagle6-2, 6-1
W#1 DoublesViolet Clerget / Nancy Koeppen vs Maya Pawlitschek / Jillian Strayer6-3, 6-1
2025-06-24vs Artman - Dream TeamWon 10
W#1 DoublesCindy Stoneback / Nancy Koeppen vs Elizabeth McDougall / Theanne Sandbo7-5, 7-5
2025-06-12vs Kim-Smash SquadWon 10
W#1 DoublesNancy Koeppen / Tina Mapili vs Toti Walia / Denise Gentzler6-4, 0-6, 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 standings16 teams · 3.0 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1SWW-Crook7070239
2Koeppen-Double Trouble7070350
3Belous-Dynamic Synergy6161253
4Gerritzen/Marston - Andiamo5252652
5Manary/Schmidt4343658
6Kim-Smash Squad4343764
7White/Coovert4343751
8Artman - Dream Team3434870
9Pawlitschek/Strayer-Fight Club Champs3434975
10Quesada-Court Queens34341073
11Baumgardner-Doubles or Nothing25251072
12McPhee/King25251063
13Holien-Busters25251173
14Bailey/Martinson25251178
15Walz/Britt16161273
16Cruz-Chill Out16161377

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 2.97 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.

3.23
Brianna Arboine
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.12
Cindy Stoneback
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
2.99
Violet Clerget
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.79
Tina Mapili
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.70
Nancy Koeppen
usually #1 Doubles 100% · 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.

Nancy Koeppen + Brianna Arboine4170% games+12.8% vs expected
Violet Clerget + Brianna Arboine4253% games+6.5% vs expected
Nancy Koeppen + Cindy Stoneback2445% games+4.1% 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
Brianna Arboine
47W–22L career · 2 lines in 2025
5%92%3%
3.23
3.5
Cindy Stoneback
57W–46L career · 3 lines in 2025
19%81%<1%
3.12
3
Violet Clerget
160W–130L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%52%48%
2.99
3
Tina Mapili
30W–52L career · 2 lines in 2025
2%91%7%
2.79
3
Nancy Koeppen
103W–138L career · 4 lines in 2025
7%91%2%
2.70

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.