← Teams

IRV-Townsend/Plowman

2024 Adult 40 & Over · 3.0 Women

9 players · average NTRP 3.28 · USTA/PACIFIC NW / NORTHERN OREGON

View scouting list →
Scouting

Roster averages 3.10 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.

3.39
Dana Nolan
usually #1 Singles 57%, also #1 Doubles 29% · published 3.5
3.38
Brooke Kuerbis
usually #1 Doubles 83%, also #3 Doubles 17% · published 3.5
3.34
Heather Matteri
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.20
Julia Plowman
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.02
Erin Gleason
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #3 Doubles 20% · published 3.5
2.87
Laurel Hallock Koppelman
usually #2 Doubles 33%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.85
Michelle Boucher
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.79
Ashley Bevan
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
—
Megan Ullmann
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
Results8 ties
2024-06-09Won 2–0
W#1 DoublesBrooke Kuerbis / Erin Gleason vs Maryann Velez / Alana Rhea6-2, 7-5
W#2 DoublesHeather Matteri / Sarie Crothers vs Robin Burak / Heidi Kjos6-4, 6-4
2024-06-07Lost 1–2
W#1 DoublesBrooke Kuerbis / Dana Nolan vs Grayson Dempsey / Rachel Young6-4, 6-4
L#2 DoublesSarie Crothers / Ashley Bevan vs Molly Briscoe / Neisa Dokken6-1, 6-2
L#3 DoublesMichelle Boucher / Denise Townsend vs Shelley Peng / Amy Korkowski6-3, 4-6, 1-0
2024-06-01Won 4–0
W#1 DoublesBrooke Kuerbis / Heather Matteri vs Hilary Murphy / Erin Keyser4-6, 6-4, 1-0
W#1 SinglesDana Nolan vs Julie Mathews6-0, 6-3
W#2 DoublesJulia Plowman / Erin Gleason vs Shaun Anderson / Sarah Wang5-7, 7-5, 1-0
W#3 DoublesLaurel Hallock Koppelman / Kelley Malama vs Amy Steele / Shweta Agrawal6-2, 2-6, 1-0
2024-05-24Split 1–1
L#1 DoublesLaurel Hallock Koppelman / Heather Matteri vs Neisa Dokken / Grayson Dempsey7-6, 6-1
W#2 DoublesLeslie Sampson / Michelle Boucher vs Anne Mangan / Amy Korkowski6-1, 6-1
2024-05-18Won 4–0
W#1 DoublesBrooke Kuerbis / Erin Gleason vs Kate Elliott / Jean Schnadig6-1, 6-2
W#1 SinglesDana Nolan vs Rachel Nies6-3, 6-2
W#2 DoublesLaurel Hallock Koppelman / Heather Matteri vs Dipali Dixit / Josette Zervic6-2, 6-0
W#3 DoublesTracy Laidley / Michelle Boucher vs Jennifer Weaver / Rita DeWeese6-2, 6-0
2024-04-28Won 3–0
W#1 DoublesJulia Plowman / Dana Nolan vs Alana Rhea / Amy Hicks6-4, 6-1
W#2 DoublesHeather Matteri / Leslie Sampson vs Teresa Darling / Robin Burak6-1, 6-7, 1-0
W#3 DoublesKate Quisling / Erin Gleason vs Christina Parks / Julie Gorretta6-1, 7-5
2024-04-19Won 3–0
W#1 DoublesJulia Plowman / Brooke Kuerbis vs Angela Diaz de Leon / Jacqueline Babb Milligan6-1, 6-1
W#1 SinglesDana Nolan vs Shari Matyas6-0, 6-0
W#2 DoublesLeslie Sampson / Heather Matteri vs Caryn Crosthwait / Nadine Hazard6-1, 6-1
2024-04-14Split 1–1
W#1 DoublesErin Gleason / Julia Plowman vs Suki Birge / Diana Blebea6-3, 6-2
L#2 DoublesAshley Bevan / Megan Ullmann vs Yukiko Namba / Jeny Joseph6-2, 6-4
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.
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.

3.5
Dana Nolan
72W–25L career
0%96%4%
3.39
3.5
Brooke Kuerbis
94W–31L career
0%97%3%
3.38
3.5
Heather Matteri
58W–30L career
0%97%3%
3.34
3.5
Julia Plowman
73W–28L career
6%94%1%
3.20
3.5
Erin Gleason
43W–17L career
35%65%0%
3.02
3
Laurel Hallock Koppelman
74W–75L career
0%97%3%
2.87
3
Michelle Boucher
45W–40L career
1%93%6%
2.85
3
Ashley Bevan
36W–28L career
1%98%1%
2.79
3
Megan Ullmann
20W–15L career
not enough data
—

Three percentages are the year-end projection — chance of moving down, staying, moving up — and the number on the right is our estimated dynamic rating, which USTA never publishes. 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.