Armonk Tennis Smart Aces
2023 18&Over Women Day Fall · 3.5 Day
14 players · average NTRP 3.50 / SOUTHERN REGION
No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.
Schedule9 played
i
Flight standings24 teams · 3.5 Day
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1Armonk Indoor: Ace Ace Baby | 0 | 8 | 11 | 176 |
| 2SMC: We've Got Balls | 0 | 8 | 13 | 176 |
| 3TIA GRINDERS 3.5 | 0 | 8 | 16 | 163 |
| 4Sportime HI- Tennis Armada | 0 | 8 | 18 | 192 |
| 5Sportime Lake Isle: Nomads | 0 | 8 | 19 | 156 |
| 6Sportime HI UNITED | 0 | 8 | 23 | 212 |
| 7Maximum Tennis Development Zone | 0 | 8 | 25 | 214 |
| 8Club Fit Briarcliff: Tainted Love | 0 | 8 | 25 | 223 |
| 9Chestnut Ridge: Queens of the Court | 0 | 8 | 25 | 214 |
| 10Grand Slam: Slice Girls | 0 | 8 | 27 | 238 |
| 11Sportime Lake Isle | 0 | 8 | 31 | 240 |
| 12Hardscrabble | 0 | 8 | 31 | 250 |
| 13Rye Racquet Go Getters | 0 | 8 | 31 | 247 |
| 14Saw Mill Club Ball Busters | 0 | 8 | 34 | 250 |
| 15New Rochelle Racquet Club: Ms Marvels | 0 | 8 | 36 | 256 |
| 16Club Fit Briarcliff Firecrackers | 0 | 8 | 41 | 258 |
| 17Rye Racquet Club: Racquettes | 0 | 9 | 19 | 198 |
| 18Lifetime Diamond | 0 | 9 | 26 | 240 |
| 19New Rochelle Racquet Club: ServeAces | 0 | 9 | 26 | 251 |
| 20TCH Double Trouble | 0 | 9 | 32 | 242 |
| 21Old Oaks | 0 | 9 | 33 | 251 |
| 22SPORTIME Lake Isle: ACES | 0 | 9 | 38 | 277 |
| 23Yonkers Tennis Center: Net Force | 0 | 9 | 38 | 270 |
| 24Armonk Tennis Smart Aces | 0 | 9 | 39 | 282 |
Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.
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 10 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.
Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.
| Lyndie Fasold + Zoe Robertson | 9–5 | 53% games | +6.2% vs expected |
| Lyndie Fasold + Kimberley Mahagan | 6–1 | 63% games | +5.1% vs expected |
| Jessica Martinic + Lauren Raucher | 68–28 | 57% games | +3.9% vs expected |
| Cathy Hammes + Melissa Frank | 10–16 | 47% games | +1.2% vs expected |
| Cathy Hammes + Zoe Robertson | 5–6 | 47% games | −0.8% vs expected |
| Susan Flanagan + Cathy Hammes | 5–6 | 44% games | −3.7% vs expected |
| Bonnie Berg + Zoe Robertson | 5–4 | 52% games | −4.1% vs expected |
| Sara Hopple + Zoe Robertson | 1–6 | 34% games | −8.4% vs expected |
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.
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.