Teams

NITA W 85CWc South Barrington (Martinez)

2023 NITA2 Winterz Combo · NITA Winter 8.5 Combo Women

15 players · average NTRP 3.96 / NORTHERN ILLINOIS

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
2023-04-29vs NITA W 85CWa Rush (Adams)Lost 02
L#1 DoublesCeyda Arslan / Ann Ko vs Soraya McTeague / Leslie McClure1-6, 4-6
L#2 DoublesAmy Brodsky / Ana Chang vs Audrey Geannopoulos / Lisa Vlach6-4, 3-6, 1-0
L#1 DoublesAnitra Willis / MacY Morales vs Janet Wolf / Kelly Good4-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesTara Brix / Yuko Suzuki vs Marinne Leonard / Michelle Perry0-6, 5-7
L#3 DoublesOzlen Er / Ceyda Arslan vs Laurie Knutte / Meghan Jones4-6, 6-4, 0-1
2023-04-01vs NITA W 85CWb TAM (Wright/Nakamura)Lost 12
L#1 DoublesColleen Chionis / MacY Morales vs Sarah Monteagudo / Kristine Jurczyk2-6, 3-6
W#2 DoublesAnn Ko / Sally Washlow vs Jennifer Grady / Ayano Nakamura6-4, 6-7, 1-0
L#3 DoublesAli Gerstad / Amy Brodsky vs Christine Campanelli / Sophia Koliatsis3-6, 1-6
L#1 DoublesLinda Swalla / Terra Jahns vs Amanda Fishleder / Kristen Coy6-2, 4-6, 0-1
L#2 DoublesAna Chang / Sally Washlow vs Bela Starkman / Rochelle Meng3-6, 0-6
W#3 DoublesAli Gerstad / Tara Brix vs Sheila Bondoc / Cara Waddle7-6, 3-5, 1-0
L#1 DoublesAna Chang / Ceyda Arslan vs Ayah Kamel / Kelly Good2-6, 6-7
L#2 DoublesAnn Ko / Terra Jahns vs Michelle Perry / Kristy Sweigard6-2, 5-7, 0-1
L#3 DoublesYuko Suzuki / MacY Morales vs Jennifer McClelland / Michelle Kram3-6, 1-6
L#1 DoublesOzlen Er / Linda Swalla vs Bela Starkman / Julie Steinberg0-6, 4-6
W#2 DoublesAnitra Willis / Ann Ko vs Desiree Witte / Rochelle Meng6-3, 6-4
W#3 DoublesColleen Chionis / MacY Morales vs Jennifer Giertsen / Anna Dau6-2, 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 standings5 teams · NITA Winter 8.5 Combo Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1NITA W 85CWb TAM (Wright/Nakamura)6216819172
2NITA W 85CWd Score (Knutte/Bianchi)5315926214
3NITA W 85CWe Midtown Bannockburn (Witte/Waddle)44101432214
4NITA W 85CWa Rush (Adams)35111331230
5NITA W 85CWc South Barrington (Martinez)1751940255

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 3.69 estimated across 14 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.

4.17
Amy Brodsky
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 4.5
4.03
Ana Chang
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.94
MacY Morales
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.89
Terra Jahns
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.77
Colleen Chionis
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.75
Ann Ko
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 4
3.75
Sally Washlow
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.72
Yuko Suzuki
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.68
Anitra Willis
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 4
3.58
Tara Brix
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
3.57
Ozlen Er
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.56
Ceyda Arslan
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.54
Ali Gerstad
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
2.73
Sharon Martinez
usually #3 Doubles 57%, also #1 Doubles 29% · published 3
Linda Swalla
usually #1 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.

Colleen Chionis + Anitra Willis2450% games+3.8% vs expected
Colleen Chionis + Tara Brix0543% games+1.3% vs expected
Sally Washlow + Ann Ko3946% games−2.5% vs expected
Ozlen Er + Ceyda Arslan31842% games−3.4% vs expected
Tara Brix + Yuko Suzuki1729% gamesnot enough data
Yuko Suzuki + MacY Morales1637% gamesnot enough data
Yuko Suzuki + Ali Gerstad2442% gamesnot enough data
Ozlen Er + Yuko Suzuki5069% gamesnot 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.

4.5
Amy Brodsky
71W–99L career · 2 lines in 2023
10%90%1%
4.17
4
Ana Chang
210W–115L career · 3 lines in 2023
<1%42%58%
4.03
4
MacY Morales
103W–58L career · 4 lines in 2023
<1%67%33%
3.94
4
Terra Jahns
131W–84L career · 2 lines in 2023
<1%81%19%
3.89
4
Colleen Chionis
180W–187L career · 2 lines in 2023
2%94%4%
3.77
4
Ann Ko
96W–154L career · 4 lines in 2023
3%95%3%
3.75
4
Sally Washlow
129W–161L career · 2 lines in 2023
3%95%3%
3.75
4
Yuko Suzuki
111W–100L career · 2 lines in 2023
5%94%2%
3.72
4
Anitra Willis
88W–74L career · 4 lines in 2023
9%91%1%
3.68
Tara Brix
33W–56L career · 2 lines in 2023
28%72%<1%
3.58
Ozlen Er
43W–75L career · 2 lines in 2023
29%71%<1%
3.57
4
Ceyda Arslan
64W–71L career · 3 lines in 2023
33%67%<1%
3.56
4
Ali Gerstad
123W–151L career · 2 lines in 2023
39%61%<1%
3.54
3
Sharon Martinez
115W–167L career · 7 lines in 2023
4%94%2%
2.73
Linda Swalla
9W–15L career · 2 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.