Teams

Total Bad Aces

2022 Montgomery Combo Fall · Montgomery Combo Fall 8.5 Women

19 players · average NTRP 4.32 / MARYLAND

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 →

Flight standings for Montgomery Combo Fall 8.5 Women 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 4.01 estimated across 17 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.

4.58
Erika Trost
usually #1 Doubles 71%, also #2 Doubles 14% · published 5
4.58
Christen Harsha
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 5
4.32
Margie Davis
published
4.26
Simone Feldman
published
Bavi Sadayappan
published 4.5
4.20
Helen Shepherd
published 4.5
4.18
Dana MacHer
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 4.5
4.13
Grace Becton
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 4.5
4.09
Ruchi Nanda
published
4.03
Heather Sine
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 4.5
3.98
Dawn Yules
published 4
3.94
Joanne Guerrera
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.78
Carolyn Greis
usually #1 Doubles 56%, also #2 Doubles 44% · published 4
3.74
Kay Bransford
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.71
Michele Bloom
published
3.68
Betsy Johnston
published 4
3.63
Pilar Falo
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.38
Ami Chastain
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 4
Kara Stevenson
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.

Kay Bransford + Pilar Falo7553% games+3.3% vs expected
Kay Bransford + Joanne Guerrera614053% games−0.7% vs expected
Heather Sine + Carolyn Greis6353% gamesnot enough data
Carolyn Greis + Ami Chastain6164% gamesnot enough data
Heather Sine + Pilar Falo3254% gamesnot enough data
Pilar Falo + Ami Chastain2341% gamesnot enough data
Dana MacHer + Grace Becton404 matchesnot enough data
Kay Bransford + Carolyn Greis224 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.

5
Erika Trost
383W–194L career · 7 lines in 2022
27%73%<1%
4.58
5
Christen Harsha
482W–135L career · 8 lines in 2022
28%72%<1%
4.58
Margie Davis
36W–18L career · no lines in 2022
1%91%8%
4.32
Simone Feldman
79W–66L career · no lines in 2022
2%95%3%
4.26
4.5
Bavi Sadayappan
2W–5L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
4.5
Helen Shepherd
26W–17L career · no lines in 2022
7%92%1%
4.20
4.5
Dana MacHer
91W–44L career · 2 lines in 2022
8%91%1%
4.18
4.5
Grace Becton
148W–64L career · 4 lines in 2022
15%84%<1%
4.13
Ruchi Nanda
6W–10L career · no lines in 2022
23%77%<1%
4.09
4.5
Heather Sine
293W–174L career · 6 lines in 2022
41%59%<1%
4.03
4
Dawn Yules
12W–8L career · no lines in 2022
<1%57%43%
3.98
4
Joanne Guerrera
112W–76L career · 2 lines in 2022
<1%67%33%
3.94
4
Carolyn Greis
584W–372L career · 9 lines in 2022
1%94%5%
3.78
4
Kay Bransford
304W–204L career · 3 lines in 2022
3%94%2%
3.74
Michele Bloom
12W–9L career · no lines in 2022
5%93%1%
3.71
4
Betsy Johnston
8W–6L career · no lines in 2022
8%91%1%
3.68
4
Pilar Falo
91W–79L career · 3 lines in 2022
16%84%<1%
3.63
4
Ami Chastain
137W–98L career · 2 lines in 2022
82%18%<1%
3.38
Kara Stevenson
3W–4L career · no 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.