Teams

CDTA W 40&OW3.0 5.River Trails Cox Sun 6 $24

CDTA Winter 40 & Over W · E

18 players · average NTRP 3.04 / CHICAGO

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 →
Schedule11 played
W#1 SinglesLouisa Carney vs Meg Hui6-2, 5-2
L#2 DoublesCatie Burns / Jaime Bennett vs Elham Abboud / Samantha Garrity1-6, 4-6
W#3 DoublesChristina Fleming / Jaime Bennett vs Stephanie Fishel / Jill Werts6-2, 6-1
L#1 SinglesLouisa Carney vs Karla Gidwani2-6, 3-4
L#2 DoublesJaime Bennett / Linda DeNardis vs Carine Petrovic / Jen Funches2-6, 3-6
W#1 SinglesLouisa Carney vs Emma Lee6-2, 3-3
W#3 DoublesChristina Fleming / Jaime Bennett vs Amy Shappert / Andrea Best6-0, 6-3
W#2 DoublesChristina Fleming / Ellyn Ryan vs Kay Noonan / Jill Werts6-3, 6-1
L#1 SinglesEllyn Ryan vs Andrea Sosa6-7, 4-6
L#3 DoublesLiz Cox / Michelle Pilipauskas vs Amalea Tshilds / Jan James-Calvert6-4, 5-7, 0-1
W#2 DoublesEllyn Ryan / Catie Burns vs Sara Ellis / Karen Accattato6-1, 6-0
W#2 DoublesCatie Burns / Jaime Bennett vs Samantha Garrity / Pamela Sherman6-4, 6-5
W#2 DoublesMichelle Charles / Jaime Bennett vs Dana Anderson / Leslie Sauer2-6, 6-5
L#3 DoublesChristina Fleming / Louisa Carney vs Jen Funches / Carine Petrovic0-6, 3-6
W#3 DoublesChristina Fleming / Louisa Carney vs Jenni Pencyla / Amalea Tshilds6-0, 6-0
W#3 DoublesJaime Bennett / Louisa Carney vs Prabha Parameswaran / Shannyn Smith7-5, 6-4
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 standings7 teams · E
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1CDTA W 40&OW3.0 2.MT Chi Brown-1 Sun 6 $31.5120361227297
2CDTA W 40&OW3.0 4.Lake Bluff Sherman Sat 4 $2293321637299
3CDTA W 40&OW3.0 5.River Trails Cox Sun 6 $2484351331297
4CDTA W 40&OW3.0 1.MT Bann Shappert Sun 4 $2775272146391
5CDTA W 40&OW3.0 3.MT Chi Brown-2 Sun 2 $31.548173164440
6CDTA W 40&OW3.0 7.Heritage Werts Sat 4 $24210103879513
7CDTA W 40&OW3.0 6.Centennial Steinbrueck Sun 5 $20012113778505

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 2.80 estimated across 16 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.

3.16
Mika Nomura
published 3.5
3.06
Selma Bouhl
published 3
3.00
Linda DeNardis
published 3
2.97
Louisa Carney
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 50% · published
2.93
Daione Mitchell
published 3
2.88
2.85
Dina DeLaurentis
published 3
2.84
Michelle Pilipauskas
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
Chrissy Scott
published 3
2.74
Michelle Charles
usually #2 Doubles 40%, also #1 Doubles 30% · published
2.73
Grace Rivera
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3
2.71
Catie Burns
published 3
2.68
Michelle Michaels
usually #3 Doubles 88%, also #2 Doubles 13% · published
2.67
Jaime Bennett
usually #2 Doubles 57%, also #3 Doubles 43% · published 3
2.62
Ellyn Ryan
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Singles 33% · published 3
2.52
Cathy Lundstrom
published 3
2.43
Liz Cox
usually #3 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.

Michelle Pilipauskas + Mika Nomura14657% games+7.2% vs expected
Catie Burns + Jaime Bennett4645% games+6.4% vs expected
Daione Mitchell + Michelle Nacheman4354% games+5.0% vs expected
Michelle Nacheman + Linda DeNardis10656% games+3.2% vs expected
Liz Cox + Michelle Pilipauskas8552% games−4.3% vs expected
Michelle Michaels + Michelle Charles3247% gamesnot enough data
Catie Burns + Michelle Pilipauskas224 matchesnot enough data
Dina DeLaurentis + Michelle Charles224 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
Mika Nomura
66W–47L career · no lines in 2025
11%88%<1%
3.16
3
Selma Bouhl
82W–50L career · no lines in 2025
<1%32%68%
3.06
3
Linda DeNardis
56W–30L career · no lines in 2025
<1%51%49%
3.00
Louisa Carney
18W–6L career · 6 lines in 2025
<1%59%41%
2.97
3
Daione Mitchell
96W–84L career · no lines in 2025
<1%70%30%
2.93
3
Michelle Nacheman
77W–96L career · no lines in 2025
<1%83%17%
2.88
3
Dina DeLaurentis
53W–64L career · no lines in 2025
<1%87%12%
2.85
Michelle Pilipauskas
40W–42L career · 4 lines in 2025
<1%88%11%
2.84
3
Chrissy Scott
8W–21L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
3
Christina Fleming
6W–17L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Michelle Charles
30W–50L career · 10 lines in 2025
3%94%2%
2.74
3
Grace Rivera
37W–55L career · 4 lines in 2025
4%94%2%
2.73
3
Catie Burns
71W–103L career · no lines in 2025
5%93%1%
2.71
Michelle Michaels
38W–48L career · 8 lines in 2025
8%91%1%
2.68
3
Jaime Bennett
20W–22L career · 7 lines in 2025
9%90%1%
2.67
3
Ellyn Ryan
15W–17L career · 3 lines in 2025
18%82%<1%
2.62
3
Cathy Lundstrom
33W–36L career · no lines in 2025
45%55%<1%
2.52
Liz Cox
29W–59L career · 1 line in 2025
70%30%<1%
2.43

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.