Teams

CIN Indianapolis, Combo 5.5 W, Bourquin (IHP)

Spring USTA Central Indiana Combo Adult · CIN Indy Adult Combo 5.5 Women, S

14 players · average NTRP 3.00 / CENTRAL INDIANA

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 →
Schedule7 played
L#1 DoublesJudy Bourquin / Ann Brown vs Kristin Srour / Alisha Valentine5-7, 2-6
L#2 DoublesNancy Daniels / Elizabeth Tysklind vs Katie Geik / Erin Fox5-7, 0-6
L#3 DoublesTheresa Mayer / Jeanne Hidalgo vs Lauren Daniel / Kaela Cusack1-6, 2-6
L#1 DoublesTheresa Mayer / Christina Graham vs Laura Combs / Chenae Reynolds3-6, 4-6
L#2 DoublesElizabeth Tysklind / Judy Bourquin vs Michelle Trotter / Megan Madia4-6, 7-6, 1-0
L#3 DoublesPamela Bennett / Jeanne Hidalgo vs Lisa Kempsell / Mindy Golightly2-6, 3-6
L#1 DoublesAnna Ransberger / Nancy Daniels vs Sarah Bowling / M Shannon Heider5-7, 4-6
L#2 DoublesPamela Bennett / Christina Graham vs Tamara Kafka / Andrea Hoffman6-4, 1-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesJo Fowler / Peggy Linard vs Cindy Senseman / Sarah Belyew1-6, 6-6, 0-1
W#1 DoublesBridget Hurry / Alicia Allgood vs Tara Moore / Kim Taylor6-4, 6-2
W#1 DoublesAlicia Allgood / Anna Ransberger vs Anna Ristow / Susan Wojcicki6-3, 6-3
W#3 DoublesAnn Brown / Peggy Linard vs Claudia Manzur / Brooke Rundle6-2, 6-3
W#1 DoublesAnna Ransberger / Christina Graham vs Lindsay Swindell / Natalie Scheidler6-1, 6-1
W#2 DoublesAnn Brown / Alicia Allgood vs Amanda Roberts / Katharine Funke6-4, 2-6, 1-0
L#3 DoublesTheresa Mayer / Jeanne Hidalgo vs Hannah Fogle / Allison Bantz6-4, 3-6, 1-0
L#1 DoublesBridget Hurry / Nancy Daniels vs Brandee Bryant / Paige Frost1-6, 6-4, 0-1
W#2 DoublesPeggy Linard / Elizabeth Tysklind vs Kiley LoCascio / Yekaterina Dubas6-4, 7-5
L#3 DoublesJo Fowler / Gayle Jones vs Nancy Kruse / Stacie Courtney1-6, 1-6
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 standings8 teams · CIN Indy Adult Combo 5.5 Women, S
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1CIN Indianapolis, Combo 5.5 W, Trotter (IRC-D)6115616165
2CIN Indianapolis, Combo 5.5 W, Senseman (IRC-D)6114716177
3CIN Indianapolis, Combo 5.5 W, Fritz (JCC)4312922170
4CIN Indianapolis, Combo 5.5 W, Carnes (INDP)43101125195
5CIN Indianapolis, Combo 5.5 W, Moore (IRC-D)3491226219
6CIN Indianapolis, Combo 5.5 W, Bourquin (IHP)3471429207
7CIN Indianapolis, Combo 5.5 W, Meyer (CRC)1681327193
8CIN Indianapolis, Combo 5.5 W, Whitener (CRC)1681330213

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 2.58 estimated across 8 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.

3.27
Anna Ransberger
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
2.84
Bridget Hurry
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
Christina Graham
published 3
Elizabeth Todd
published 3
2.64
Elizabeth Tysklind
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.52
Theresa Mayer
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
2.48
Pamela Bennett
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
2.45
Jo Fowler
usually #3 Doubles 56%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
2.32
Peggy Linard
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
Gayle Jones
published 2.5
2.14
Judy Bourquin
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
Alicia Allgood
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
Jeanne Hidalgo
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Nancy Daniels
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · 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.

Theresa Mayer + Peggy Linard71440% games−0.5% vs expected
Elizabeth Todd + Theresa Mayer4841% games−2.5% vs expected
Elizabeth Todd + Pamela Bennett3537% games−6.0% vs expected
Elizabeth Todd + Peggy Linard71239% games−9.5% vs expected
Theresa Mayer + Judy Bourquin31136% games−16.4% vs expected
Elizabeth Tysklind + Jeanne Hidalgo2940% gamesnot enough data
Pamela Bennett + Theresa Mayer2546% gamesnot enough data
Pamela Bennett + Judy Bourquin2538% gamesnot 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.

3.5
Anna Ransberger
43W–27L career · 3 lines in 2024
2%94%4%
3.27
3
Bridget Hurry
34W–65L career · 4 lines in 2024
<1%88%11%
2.84
3
Christina Graham
16W–39L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
3
Elizabeth Todd
22W–64L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
3
Elizabeth Tysklind
37W–78L career · 3 lines in 2024
15%85%<1%
2.64
Theresa Mayer
31W–86L career · 3 lines in 2024
43%57%<1%
2.52
Pamela Bennett
20W–102L career · 2 lines in 2024
56%44%<1%
2.48
Jo Fowler
41W–74L career · 9 lines in 2024
66%34%<1%
2.45
Peggy Linard
20W–64L career · 3 lines in 2024
92%8%<1%
2.32
2.5
Gayle Jones
1W–18L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
Judy Bourquin
23W–75L career · 2 lines in 2024
>99%<1%<1%
2.14
Alicia Allgood
3W–0L career · 3 lines in 2024
not enough data
Jeanne Hidalgo
3W–19L career · 3 lines in 2024
not enough data
Nancy Daniels
0W–3L career · 3 lines in 2024
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.