Teams

4-LDubois-Eno

2022 Eno River Singles 18 & Over · Adult 18 & Over 3.0 Women Evening

7 players · average NTRP 2.92 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule9 played
2022-07-29vs 8-MFulton-UNCWon 20
W#1 SinglesKelly Conklin vs Erin Berliner6-4, 7-6
W#2 SinglesLaura Dubois vs Courtney Whilden2-6, 6-4, 1-0
2022-07-19vs 7-JDeConto/LWilliams-EnoSplit 11
L#1 SinglesKelly Conklin vs Joyce Robinson3-6, 4-6
W#2 SinglesChristina Pipkin vs Julie DeConto4-6, 6-4, 1-0
2022-07-14vs 5-MLong-ENO-18 3.0Lost 02
L#1 SinglesDanielle Nader vs Megan Chiles0-6, 1-6
L#2 SinglesAlexa Hartenstein vs Sarah Mills1-6, 1-6
2022-07-12vs 6-CIrish - SVCLost 01
L#1 SinglesAlexa Hartenstein vs Laura Caldwell2-6, 6-3, 0-1
2022-06-28vs 1-GLoFrese-Eno 3.0 18Lost 01
L#3 SinglesAlexa Hartenstein vs Courtney Carey1-6, 6-4, 0-1
2022-06-21vs 3-KLAAN-Eno-18+Lost 01
L#1 SinglesKelly Conklin vs Berna Tareen0-6, 4-6
2022-06-14Won 10
W#1 SinglesDanielle Nader vs Meredith Schartz6-3, 6-1
2022-06-07vs 10-NWatts-EnoWon 30
W#1 SinglesChristina Pipkin vs Cristina Raiti6-0, 6-1
W#2 SinglesLaura Dubois vs Amy Peters6-1, 6-1
W#3 SinglesDanielle Nader vs Megan McCullough6-4, 7-5
2022-05-31vs 9-SNysewander-EnoWon 30
W#1 SinglesKelly Conklin vs Jennifer Cantwell6-3, 6-4
W#2 SinglesDanielle Nader vs MaryJo McNeill2-6, 6-3, 1-0
W#3 SinglesLaura Dubois vs Kristin Isaacs7-5, 5-7, 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 standings for Adult 18 & Over 3.0 Women Evening 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 2.68 estimated across 6 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.

3.06
Christina Pipkin
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 50% · published 3
2.89
Kelly Conklin
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 3
2.76
Alexa Hartenstein
usually #2 Singles 43%, also #1 Singles 29% · published 3
2.56
Laura Dubois
usually #2 Singles 67%, also #3 Singles 33% · published 3
2.45
2.36
Danielle Nader
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 25% · published 2.5
Hayley Blum
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.

Laura Dubois + Kelly Conklin7454% games+9.0% vs expected
Laura Dubois + Danielle Nader3346% gamesnot enough data
Laura Dubois + Christina Pipkin123 matchesnot enough data
Kelly Conklin + Christina Pipkin123 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.

3
Christina Pipkin
86W–65L career · 2 lines in 2022
<1%31%69%
3.06
3
Kelly Conklin
71W–81L career · 4 lines in 2022
<1%79%21%
2.89
3
Alexa Hartenstein
113W–90L career · 7 lines in 2022
2%94%3%
2.76
3
Laura Dubois
82W–106L career · type A · 3 lines in 2022
31%69%<1%
2.56
3
Caroline Perkinson
3W–10L career · no lines in 2022
64%36%<1%
2.45
2.5
Danielle Nader
32W–36L career · 4 lines in 2022
0%85%15%
2.36
Hayley Blum
1W–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.