Teams

FD 7.0 MV2 Smith

2024 NEOTA Fusion Doubles · NEOTA 18&O 7.0 Fusion Doubles

18 players · average NTRP 3.38 / NORTHEASTERN OHIO

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 →
Flight standings13 teams · NEOTA 18&O 7.0 Fusion Doubles
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1FD 7.0 NC1 Bullach7118618184
2FD 7.0 MM Mei7218921200
3FD 7.0 MV2 Smith7219826251
4FD 7.0 CC2 Sobecks63151228244
5FD 7.0 PM Leohr53131128208
6FD 7.0 NC2 Paulino4415921187
7FD 7.0 CC1 Meisenbach45161130245
8FD 7.0 MV1 Connell45121535251
9FD 7.0 WR Downing45101740296
10FD 7.0 BR Sweeney3591533215
11FD 7.0 LT McKenzie36131431263
12FD 7.0 TP Lynch1751940260
13FD 7.0 PW Merugu1852247308

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 3.24 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.

3.53
David Blond
published 3.5
3.46
Karen Cipriani
published
3.40
Jinu Hwang
published
3.38
Liza Brady
published
3.36
Craig Nine
published 3.5
3.36
Robert Haught
published
3.35
Brad Gerber
published 3.5
3.34
GAUTAM PATHAK
published
3.33
Ben Cutler
published 3.5
3.28
Chipo Jolibois
published 3.5
3.25
Kristin Chuko
published
3.20
VIctoria Ung
published
3.11
Patricia Mercuri
published
3.07
Brandon Carrus
published 3.5
3.02
George Raguz
published
2.98
Denise Hwang
published 3
2.68
Audrey Heckaman
published 3
Marybeth Esposito
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.

Liza Brady + Denise Hwang4270% games+11.0% vs expected
Brandon Carrus + Robert Haught8360% games+7.6% vs expected
Patricia Mercuri + Marybeth Esposito6163% games+6.6% vs expected
VIctoria Ung + Liza Brady14463% games+6.4% vs expected
Patricia Mercuri + Kristin Chuko9751% games+1.2% vs expected
VIctoria Ung + Denise Hwang2351% gamesnot enough data
Craig Nine + Robert Haught3250% gamesnot enough data
Audrey Heckaman + Kristin Chuko314 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
David Blond
100W–42L career · no lines in 2024
<1%43%57%
3.53
Karen Cipriani
88W–69L career · no lines in 2024
<1%60%40%
3.46
Jinu Hwang
81W–66L career · no lines in 2024
<1%<1%>99%
3.40
Liza Brady
156W–94L career · no lines in 2024
<1%80%20%
3.38
3.5
Craig Nine
101W–69L career · no lines in 2024
<1%83%16%
3.36
Robert Haught
99W–59L career · no lines in 2024
1%84%15%
3.36
3.5
Brad Gerber
36W–30L career · no lines in 2024
1%86%13%
3.35
GAUTAM PATHAK
105W–69L career · no lines in 2024
<1%1%99%
3.34
3.5
Ben Cutler
32W–33L career · no lines in 2024
1%87%12%
3.33
3.5
Chipo Jolibois
83W–57L career · no lines in 2024
2%92%6%
3.28
Kristin Chuko
216W–143L career · no lines in 2024
<1%3%97%
3.25
VIctoria Ung
159W–66L career · no lines in 2024
<1%8%92%
3.20
Patricia Mercuri
170W–116L career · no lines in 2024
<1%21%79%
3.11
3.5
Brandon Carrus
43W–41L career · no lines in 2024
30%70%<1%
3.07
George Raguz
68W–38L career · no lines in 2024
<1%44%56%
3.02
3
Denise Hwang
75W–70L career · no lines in 2024
<1%56%43%
2.98
3
Audrey Heckaman
77W–70L career · no lines in 2024
10%89%1%
2.68
Marybeth Esposito
114W–74L career · no lines 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.