Teams

BC-Hass

2022 Adult 18 & Over · 2.5 Women

10 players · average NTRP 2.60 / NORTHWEST WASHINGTON

View scouting list →
Schedule8 played
2022-05-23vs HBSQ-YeighLost 12
W#1 DoublesJodi Freudenberger / Joanne Kennedy vs Natalie Warner / Alashia Wartelle6-2, 6-1
L#1 SinglesHema Goyal vs Gegi Ward6-4, 0-6, 0-1
L#2 DoublesKaren Vanderhoek / Ann DeRham vs Melissa Jamison / Francoise O'Donnell4-6, 3-6
2022-05-16vs TCSP-40/Love-CamposLost 12
L#1 DoublesJodi Freudenberger / Laura Kagle vs Sharon Lee / Claire Tran3-6, 0-6
W#1 SinglesHema Goyal vs A C6-2, 7-5
L#2 DoublesLindsey McCallum / Joanne Kennedy vs Jillayna Campos / Kristine Lund3-6, 6-4, 1-0
2022-05-09vs CAC/SL-MatterLost 03
L#1 DoublesKaren Vanderhoek / Joanne Kennedy vs Veronica Stordahl / Janice Thiel1-6, 6-4, 0-1
L#1 SinglesHema Goyal vs Anastasia Mason3-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesJulia Anderson / Peg Arsenault vs Stephanie Heffner / Louise Radtke1-6, 6-2, 0-1
2022-05-02vs MI-Dolls with balls-IvanovWon 21
W#1 DoublesMalia Hass / Laura Kagle vs Laura Althoff / Emily Norden6-7, 6-4, 1-0
L#1 SinglesLindsey McCallum vs Courtney Cohen4-6, 1-6
W#2 DoublesPeg Arsenault / Ann DeRham vs Dolly Ivanov / Emily Vavrichek1-6, 7-5, 1-0
2022-04-25vs HBSQ-YeighLost 12
W#1 DoublesLindsey McCallum / Jodi Freudenberger vs Sharon Drake / Melissa Jamison7-6, 7-5
L#1 SinglesHema Goyal vs Gegi Ward2-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesAnn DeRham / Audrey Lee vs Margaret Anaya / Marni Mills2-6, 2-6
2022-04-18vs MI-Dolls with balls-IvanovLost 02
L#1 SinglesHema Goyal vs Emily Norden6-1, 4-6, 0-1
L#2 DoublesAudrey Lee / Julia Anderson vs Motoko Kodera / Courtney Cohen0-6, 2-6
2022-04-11vs PL-Rally Renegades-LaneLost 12
L#1 DoublesMalia Hass / Julia Anderson vs Lora Rosewater / Delicia Ormiston1-6, 6-4, 0-1
L#1 SinglesHema Goyal vs Xiaobei Li6-4, 3-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesPeg Arsenault / Karen Vanderhoek vs Melissa Tremel / Eloisa Tang6-0, 6-2
2022-04-04vs CAC/SL-MatterWon 21
W#1 DoublesLaura Kagle / Jodi Freudenberger vs Janice Thiel / Stephanie Heffner7-5, 6-3
L#1 SinglesMalia Hass vs Anastasia Mason2-6, 3-6
W#2 DoublesHema Goyal / Joanne Kennedy vs Louise Radtke / Nancy Whittaker6-3, 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 standings25 teams · 2.5 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1RBW-Group Therapy-English802139132
2TCSP-40/Love-Campos8022211170
3ETC-The Net Crashers-Trautmann8019513164
4CP-TNT-Chen7120412153
5MI-Always Be Closing-Lee7119514182
6ETC-Landry-Navarro6215919190
7EDG-Edgebrook Edge 18+ Kirkegaard53141022170
8RTC-Dare Doubles-Ling Su53131127211
9MI-Dolls with balls-Ivanov44141023200
10MC-Fab & Furious 2-Holden44141023205
11TCSP-Steck44131124195
12AYTC-South End Ladies-Zimmer44121225201
13FC-Good Gets-Lydon44101429220
14WSC-Kinney35111327209
15BC-Sets in the City-Nott35101430222
16AYTC-Volley Girls-Goldman35111331218
17PL-Rally Renegades-Lane3581635240
18BAIN-Island Fairies-Parvin3581635245
19STC-Nora3561837233
20BC-Hass2691532231
21CAC/SL-Matter2681634238
22ETC-Super Spinners-Brown2671734237
23BC-Hot Shots 18+ Underwood2691534246
24MI-Oshea1781635238
25CAC/SL-Bet On Our Court0832142266

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 2.34 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.

2.87
Lindsey McCallum
usually #1 Doubles 33%, also #1 Singles 33% · published 3
2.54
Julia Anderson
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
2.44
Laura Kagle
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Audrey Lee
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
Hema Goyal
usually #1 Singles 86%, also #2 Doubles 14% · published 2.5
2.17
Jodi Freudenberger
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
2.07
Joanne Kennedy
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
1.91
Ann DeRham
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
Karen Vanderhoek
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
Malia Hass
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #1 Singles 33% · 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.

Jodi Freudenberger + Laura Kagle213 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
Lindsey McCallum
17W–7L career · 3 lines in 2022
<1%84%16%
2.87
Julia Anderson
1W–9L career · 3 lines in 2022
0%38%62%
2.54
Laura Kagle
14W–20L career · 3 lines in 2022
68%32%<1%
2.44
2.5
Audrey Lee
2W–6L career · 2 lines in 2022
not enough data
2.5
Hema Goyal
6W–12L career · 7 lines in 2022
not enough data
2.5
Jodi Freudenberger
23W–19L career · 4 lines in 2022
0%99%1%
2.17
Joanne Kennedy
6W–11L career · 4 lines in 2022
0%>99%<1%
2.07
2.5
Ann DeRham
4W–9L career · type S · 3 lines in 2022
0%>99%<1%
1.91
Karen Vanderhoek
8W–43L career · 3 lines in 2022
not enough data
Malia Hass
1W–4L career · 3 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.