Teams

MSIL 5.5W Combo Amulraj-Peoria

2022 MSIL Fall Combo · East MSIL 5.5W Combo

9 players · average NTRP 2.90 / MID-SOUTH 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 →
Schedule3 played
2023-01-10Won 10
W#1 DoublesMartha Amulraj / Angelia Neeley vs Deborah Harmon / Tabatha Waid5-4
2023-01-10Won 10
W#1 DoublesMartha Amulraj / Angelia Neeley vs Deborah Harmon / Tabatha Waid1-6, 6-2, 1-0
2022-12-13vs MSIL 5.5W Combo Gregory-PeoriaWon 10
W#1 DoublesBelinda Rohn / Kirsten McRaven vs Marcia Gregory / Jennie Hahn6-3, 6-3
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 standings2 teams · East MSIL 5.5W Combo
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1MSIL 5.5W Combo Amulraj-Peoria701927106
2MSIL 5.5W Combo Gregory-Peoria0721939238

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 2.82 estimated across 4 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
Martha Amulraj
usually #2 Doubles 54%, also #1 Doubles 39% · published 3
2.97
Belinda Rohn
usually #3 Doubles 47%, also #2 Doubles 27% · published 3
Carol Deloriea
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published 3
2.60
Angelia Neeley
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
2.56
Kara Knepp
usually #2 Doubles 64%, also #1 Doubles 27% · published 3
Jennifer Hawkins
usually #2 Doubles 54%, also #1 Doubles 39% · published
Kirsten McRaven
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Mary Lou Couri
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
Melissa Aprahamian
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · 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.

Belinda Rohn + Martha Amulraj4263% gamesnot enough data
Kara Knepp + Belinda Rohn224 matchesnot enough data
Kara Knepp + Martha Amulraj224 matchesnot enough data
Kara Knepp + Jennifer Hawkins303 matchesnot enough data
Jennifer Hawkins + Mary Lou Couri303 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
Martha Amulraj
94W–52L career · 13 lines in 2022
<1%11%89%
3.16
3
Belinda Rohn
67W–44L career · 15 lines in 2022
<1%60%40%
2.97
3
Carol Deloriea
15W–21L career · 5 lines in 2022
not enough data
2.5
Angelia Neeley
21W–30L career · 2 lines in 2022
0%23%77%
2.60
3
Kara Knepp
55W–62L career · 11 lines in 2022
33%67%<1%
2.56
Jennifer Hawkins
47W–10L career · 13 lines in 2022
not enough data
Kirsten McRaven
2W–5L career · 1 line in 2022
not enough data
Mary Lou Couri
6W–3L career · 4 lines in 2022
not enough data
Melissa Aprahamian
30W–10L career · 4 lines in 2022
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.