Teams

WI Tri Delta W Doubles MALT Mavlyutov

2023 WI Other · WI Tri Level Delta Fall Eve Women

11 players · average NTRP 3.58 / WISCONSIN

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
L#3 DoublesJannea Wood / Yana Mavlyutov vs Kathleen Oconnell / Kim Kessler2-6, 4-6
2023-11-14Won 10
W#1 DoublesYana Mavlyutov / Jannea Wood vs Molly Schmidt / Amy Robinson6-0, 6-1
L#3 DoublesJannea Wood / Yana Mavlyutov vs Claudia Marquez / Karelyn Hopkins0-6, 5-7
W#3 DoublesAudrey Marchesini / Jannea Wood vs Suzanne Hagopian / Judith Mills5-7, 6-0, 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 standings6 teams · WI Tri Level Delta Fall Eve Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1WI Tri Delta W Doubles MALT Oakley6116515149
2WI Tri Delta W Doubles MALT Armitage5216514130
3WI Tri Delta W Doubles MALT Mavlyutov43101123174
4WI Tri Delta W Doubles MALT Schnee3481328191
5WI Tri Delta W Doubles MALT Bradshaw2481021155
6WI Tri Delta W Doubles MALT Rilling0621632206

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 2.98 estimated across 4 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.

Andrea Landes
published 4
Jackie Batty
usually #1 Singles 39%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.27
Yana Mavlyutov
usually #3 Doubles 42%, also #2 Singles 17% · published
Abigail Grodecki
usually #2 Doubles 39%, also #2 Singles 31% · published 3.5
Andrea Anderson
published 3.5
3.24
Brooke Gritt
usually #2 Doubles 57%, also #3 Doubles 43% · published 3.5
2.72
Jannea Wood
usually #3 Doubles 75%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published
2.69
Audrey Marchesini
usually #3 Singles 50%, also #3 Doubles 39% · published 3
Amanda Elfman
usually #2 Singles 38%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
Jane White
published
MacAyla Schopp
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.

Jannea Wood + Yana Mavlyutov224 matchesnot enough data
Amanda Elfman + MacAyla Schopp123 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.

4
Andrea Landes
5W–3L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
4
Jackie Batty
26W–18L career · 18 lines in 2023
not enough data
Yana Mavlyutov
126W–152L career · 11 lines in 2023
2%94%4%
3.27
3.5
Abigail Grodecki
58W–33L career · 13 lines in 2023
not enough data
3.5
Andrea Anderson
8W–15L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
3.5
Brooke Gritt
43W–54L career · 7 lines in 2023
3%95%2%
3.24
Jannea Wood
56W–76L career · 4 lines in 2023
4%94%2%
2.72
3
Audrey Marchesini
51W–43L career · 18 lines in 2023
7%92%1%
2.69
Amanda Elfman
19W–17L career · 15 lines in 2023
not enough data
Jane White
19W–18L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
MacAyla Schopp
14W–47L career · 6 lines in 2023
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.