3HV-LADENHEIM 65 W/E WOMEN SEM F1
2022 SEM FALL COMBO DOUBLES · WOMEN 65 COMBO SEM
18 players · average NTRP 3.25 / S.E. MICHIGAN
No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.
Schedule10 played
i
Flight standings22 teams · WOMEN 65 COMBO SEM
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16LIB-MARLEY 65 W/E WOMEN SEM F1 | 9 | 1 | 9 | 161 |
| 21MONY-DURAN 65 W/E WOMEN SEM F1 | 9 | 1 | 17 | 193 |
| 32FAC-MOSS 65 W/E WOMEN SEM F3 | 7 | 1 | 19 | 175 |
| 43TROY-LI 65 W/E WOMEN SEM F4 | 6 | 2 | 15 | 179 |
| 55FAC-POPLOSKIE 65 W/E WOMEN SEM F4 | 6 | 2 | 17 | 170 |
| 63EAST-WEISEL 65 W/E WOMEN SEM F3 | 6 | 2 | 27 | 219 |
| 71DEER-MOWBRAY 65 W/E WOMEN SEM F2 | 6 | 3 | 26 | 216 |
| 85LTF-ANDERSON 65 W/E WOMEN SEM F2 | 6 | 3 | 28 | 221 |
| 92EAST-ZAMPARDO 65 W/E WOMEN SEM F4 | 5 | 3 | 27 | 210 |
| 106SCWB-BRANDT 65 W/E WOMEN SEM F2 | 4 | 5 | 29 | 249 |
| 112WESS-BROWN 65 W/E WOMEN SEM F2 | 4 | 5 | 35 | 260 |
| 123HV-LADENHEIM 65 W/E WOMEN SEM F1 | 4 | 6 | 32 | 258 |
| 135LIB-BULLOCK 65 W/E WOMEN SEM F1 | 4 | 6 | 37 | 280 |
| 142HV-REECE 65 W/E WOMEN SEM F1 | 4 | 6 | 43 | 304 |
| 154TROY-SEGERLIND 65 W/E WOMEN SEM F2 | 3 | 2 | 15 | 128 |
| 165BRC-NOVOTNY 65 W/E WOMEN SEM F3 | 3 | 5 | 26 | 222 |
| 176FAC-JOHNSON 65 W/E WOMEN SEM F3 | 2 | 6 | 31 | 233 |
| 181FAC-CROFT 65 W/E WOMEN SEM F4 | 2 | 6 | 35 | 252 |
| 194BEV-ZADROGA 65 W/E WOMEN SEM F3 | 2 | 6 | 37 | 254 |
| 203FAC-KELLY 65 W/E WOMEN SEM F2 | 2 | 7 | 39 | 285 |
| 216BEV-MOORE 65 W/E WOMEN SEM F4 | 1 | 7 | 42 | 272 |
| 224CHIP-COOPER 65 W/E WOMEN SEM F1 | 0 | 10 | 56 | 351 |
Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.
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 3.02 estimated across 9 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.
Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.
| Nathalie Vandecan + Lee Wu | 4–3 | 53% games | +8.6% vs expected |
| Mary Freer + Marianne Clauw | 2–6 | 44% games | +3.7% vs expected |
| Lee Wu + Marianne Clauw | 0–8 | 32% games | +0.6% vs expected |
| Kathryn Clark + Jane Coffey | 1–4 | 45% games | +0.2% vs expected |
| Petra Schroeder + Marianne Clauw | 2–6 | 43% games | −0.0% vs expected |
| Petra Schroeder + Jane Coffey | 7–9 | 45% games | −0.6% vs expected |
| Marci Walker + Roopa Gurm | 7–5 | 51% games | −1.4% vs expected |
| Annette Kretzler + Mary Freer | 2–3 | 53% games | −2.1% vs expected |
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.
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.