Teams

Greenhill/Nevelow-Ewing W4.0S

2026 DALLAS TENNIS 18 & Over ADULT S · S W. Saturday League

21 players · average NTRP 4.00 / TEXAS

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 →
Schedule5 played
2026-06-27vs LB Houston/Schneiderman-Kim W4.0SLost 01
L#3 DoublesGianine Claure / Amy Schachter vs Hyon Chu Kim / Robin Milton4-6, 5-7
2026-06-20vs Greenhill/Colaluca W4.0SWon 20
W#1 DoublesElizabeth Nevelow / Amy Schachter vs Mary Helen Nine / Jessica Thota6-2, 7-6
W#2 DoublesPatricia Arvanitis / Megan Ensign vs Hope Miller / Kelly Britson6-3, 6-1
2026-05-30Won 10
W#2 DoublesMegan Ensign / Candice Ewing vs Barbara Forkel / Ann Liu6-3, 6-2
2026-05-16Won 10
W#3 DoublesAlex Trimper / Elizabeth Nevelow vs Michelle Marketos / Louise Bexley3-6, 6-1, 1-0
2026-05-02Won 10
W#1 SinglesAlex Trimper vs Trisha Grimsley6-3, 2-6, 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 S W. Saturday League 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 3.78 estimated across 17 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.

3.92
Gina Manning
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.91
Julie Murray
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #3 Doubles 13% · published
3.89
Monique Black
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
3.89
Brittani Yoo
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.88
Tiffany Trinh
usually #1 Singles 57%, also #2 Singles 43% · published
3.85
Anne Doise
usually #3 Doubles 75%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 4
3.81
Ann Schober
usually #2 Doubles 57%, also #3 Doubles 29% · published 4
3.81
Kristen Lampe
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
3.80
Elizabeth Nevelow
usually #1 Doubles 46%, also #2 Doubles 36% · published
3.80
Jean McAulay
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 17% · published
3.77
Patricia Arvanitis
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
3.76
Candice Ewing
usually #1 Doubles 58%, also #2 Singles 25% · published 4
Alex Trimper
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 50% · published 4
3.74
Lani Trieu
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
3.70
Amy Schachter
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.70
Gianine Claure
usually #3 Doubles 71%, also #1 Doubles 14% · published
3.64
Trish Chandler
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.46
Melany White
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Elizabeth Lindberg
usually #2 Doubles 33%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
Gianna Cerullo
usually #1 Singles 63%, also #2 Singles 38% · published
Megan Ensign
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.

Julie Murray + Candice Ewing5156% games+6.5% vs expected
Julie Murray + Elizabeth Nevelow14260% games+3.3% vs expected
Monique Black + Candice Ewing8553% games+1.9% vs expected
Monique Black + Elizabeth Nevelow10256% games+0.2% vs expected
Jean McAulay + Ann Schober101544% games−6.4% vs expected
Patricia Arvanitis + Elizabeth Nevelow3254% gamesnot enough data
Candice Ewing + Anne Doise3251% gamesnot enough data
Monique Black + Kristen Lampe314 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.

Gina Manning
6W–2L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%71%29%
3.92
Julie Murray
26W–7L career · 8 lines in 2026
<1%73%26%
3.91
Monique Black
37W–18L career · 8 lines in 2026
<1%78%21%
3.89
4
Brittani Yoo
8W–7L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%79%21%
3.89
Tiffany Trinh
34W–10L career · 7 lines in 2026
<1%79%21%
3.88
4
Anne Doise
12W–21L career · 8 lines in 2026
1%86%14%
3.85
4
Ann Schober
11W–17L career · 7 lines in 2026
1%89%9%
3.81
Kristen Lampe
13W–8L career · 4 lines in 2026
1%90%9%
3.81
Elizabeth Nevelow
39W–13L career · 11 lines in 2026
2%91%8%
3.80
Jean McAulay
10W–16L career · 6 lines in 2026
2%91%8%
3.80
Patricia Arvanitis
19W–17L career · 4 lines in 2026
3%92%5%
3.77
4
Candice Ewing
28W–17L career · 12 lines in 2026
3%92%4%
3.76
4
Alex Trimper
2W–0L career · 2 lines in 2026
not enough data
Lani Trieu
10W–5L career · 2 lines in 2026
4%93%3%
3.74
4
Amy Schachter
1W–5L career · 2 lines in 2026
8%91%2%
3.70
Gianine Claure
13W–6L career · 7 lines in 2026
8%91%2%
3.70
Trish Chandler
12W–6L career · 1 line in 2026
15%84%1%
3.64
Melany White
9W–9L career · 5 lines in 2026
62%38%<1%
3.46
Elizabeth Lindberg
4W–5L career · 3 lines in 2026
not enough data
Gianna Cerullo
8W–11L career · 8 lines in 2026
not enough data
Megan Ensign
2W–0L career · 2 lines in 2026
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.