Teams

PEACH-HARTEL AD55&O MO 60 NW SEM

2024 SEM ADULT 55 & OVER NIGHT WOMEN · 6.0 WOMEN MON PM SEM

13 players · average NTRP 3.00 / S.E. MICHIGAN

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 →
Schedule6 played
2024-08-12vs EAST-FRAZIER AD55&O MO 60 NW SEMWon 20
W#1 DoublesAlison Martell / Shelly Turner vs Kathleen Cleland / Karen Steitz4-6, 7-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesSusan Marshall / Jan Synk vs Sara Sessions / Lynn Gentz6-2, 2-6, 1-0
2024-08-05vs EAST-FRAZIER AD55&O MO 60 NW SEMWon 21
W#1 DoublesJudith Swiderski / Rochelle Deane vs Kathleen Cleland / Karen Steitz2-6, 6-2, 1-0
L#2 DoublesKathy Butkus / Lisa Fuller vs Barbara Bates / Peggy Offerle4-6, 1-6
W#3 DoublesCheryl Hartel / Judy Hoch vs Anita Sandercott / Andrea Abram6-3, 6-4
2024-07-29vs EAST-FRAZIER AD55&O MO 60 NW SEMWon 21
L#1 DoublesCheryl Hartel / Shelly Turner vs Kathleen Cleland / Peggy Offerle4-6, 1-6
W#2 DoublesSusan Lukas / Alison Martell vs Sara Sessions / Lynn Gentz6-3, 7-5
W#3 DoublesSusan Marshall / Lisa Fuller vs Marilyn Galsterer / Karen Steitz6-4, 3-6, 1-0
2024-07-02vs EAST-FRAZIER AD55&O MO 60 NW SEMWon 30
W#1 DoublesShelly Turner / Cheryl Hartel vs Sabrina Frazier / Sara Sessions6-1, 6-2
W#2 DoublesJan Synk / Susan Marshall vs Hannah Buford / Sharon Goerke6-2, 6-1
W#3 DoublesTina Fisher / Alison Martell vs N/A6-0, 6-0
2024-06-17vs EAST-FRAZIER AD55&O MO 60 NW SEMWon 21
L#1 DoublesKathy Butkus / Cheryl Hartel vs Kathleen Cleland / Karen Steitz4-6, 4-6
W#2 DoublesTina Fisher / Lisa Fuller vs Anita Sandercott / Barbara Bates7-6, 6-1
W#3 DoublesRochelle Deane / Judith Swiderski vs Lynn Gentz / Hannah Buford6-2, 6-0
2024-06-10vs EAST-FRAZIER AD55&O MO 60 NW SEMWon 30
W#1 DoublesShelly Turner / Kathy Butkus vs Kathleen Cleland / Peggy Offerle6-3, 6-3
W#2 DoublesJan Synk / Judy Hoch vs Barbara Bates / Karen Steitz6-3, 3-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesSusan Lukas / Alison Martell vs Sara Sessions / Sabrina Frazier6-3, 6-2
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 standings2 teams · 6.0 WOMEN MON PM SEM
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1PEACH-HARTEL AD55&O MO 60 NW SEM6014413136
2EAST-FRAZIER AD55&O MO 60 NW SEM0641428178

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 2.72 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.

3.41
Judith Swiderski
usually #1 Doubles 90%, also #3 Doubles 10% · published 3.5
2.96
Kathy Butkus
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 30% · published 3
Carol Malone
published 3
2.67
Susan Lukas
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
2.65
Alison Martell
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3
2.62
Judy Hoch
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3
2.54
Cheryl Hartel
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 3
2.52
Lisa Fuller
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
2.36
Rochelle Deane
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 2.5
Jan Synk
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Shelly Turner
published
Susan Marshall
published
Tina Fisher
usually #2 Doubles 100% · 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.

Judith Swiderski + Kathy Butkus241156% games+14.3% vs expected
Shelly Turner + Cheryl Hartel6060% gamesnot enough data
Judy Hoch + Cheryl Hartel2340% gamesnot enough data
Lisa Fuller + Rochelle Deane1431% gamesnot enough data
Jan Synk + Judy Hoch224 matchesnot enough data
Judy Hoch + Alison Martell044 matchesnot enough data
Judy Hoch + Rochelle Deane044 matchesnot enough data
Carol Malone + Lisa Fuller123 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.

3.5
Judith Swiderski
178W–98L career · 10 lines in 2024
<1%74%26%
3.41
3
Kathy Butkus
80W–63L career · 10 lines in 2024
<1%61%39%
2.96
3
Carol Malone
27W–59L career · type A · no lines in 2024
not enough data
Susan Lukas
52W–59L career · 2 lines in 2024
12%88%1%
2.67
3
Alison Martell
15W–29L career · 4 lines in 2024
15%85%1%
2.65
3
Judy Hoch
62W–122L career · type A · 2 lines in 2024
20%80%<1%
2.62
3
Cheryl Hartel
61W–105L career · 4 lines in 2024
38%62%<1%
2.54
Lisa Fuller
20W–28L career · 3 lines in 2024
44%56%<1%
2.52
2.5
Rochelle Deane
19W–36L career · 2 lines in 2024
0%84%16%
2.36
Jan Synk
28W–54L career · 3 lines in 2024
not enough data
Shelly Turner
11W–4L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
Susan Marshall
12W–10L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
Tina Fisher
9W–7L career · 1 line 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.