Teams

Olympic 1 Ellis/Lukach

2022 SUMMER 65&O Women · Summer 7.0W

10 players · average NTRP 3.38 / OHIO VALLEY

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 →
Schedule4 played
2022-05-31Won 10
W#1 DoublesLisa Westwater / Blythe Brown vs Nancy Russell / Marsha Friedli6-2, 6-0
2022-05-26Won 10
W#2 DoublesSara Harris / Barbara Koch vs Marsha Friedli / Joy Hale6-2, 2-6, 1-0
2022-05-20Won 10
W#2 DoublesSara Harris / Barbara Koch vs Linda Augspurger / Joy Hale6-2, 1-6, 1-0
2022-05-10Won 10
W#1 DoublesBlythe Brown / Lisa Westwater vs Linda Augspurger / Joy Hale6-2, 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 standings for Summer 7.0W have not been collected yet. Where we have them we show every team in the flight ranked, with this team highlighted. The crawler is still filling in older seasons and flights.

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 3.11 estimated across 7 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.

3.36
Deborah Ellis
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.36
Mary Anne Acer
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
3.35
Blythe Brown
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
Barbara Koch
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.11
Karen Heyob
usually #1 Doubles 40%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published
2.98
Sara Harris
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.89
Cynthia Pawlarczyk
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.72
Sarah Lukach
usually #3 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
Lisa Westwater
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Susan Steffen
usually #1 Doubles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · 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.

Mary Anne Acer + Deborah Ellis36763% games+5.8% vs expected
Mary Anne Acer + Susan Steffen5461% gamesnot enough data
Sara Harris + Sarah Lukach3551% gamesnot enough data
Mary Anne Acer + Karen Heyob4454% gamesnot enough data
Susan Steffen + Deborah Ellis4353% gamesnot enough data
Barbara Koch + Blythe Brown4250% gamesnot enough data
Sarah Lukach + Cynthia Pawlarczyk2438% gamesnot enough data
Lisa Westwater + Blythe Brown6061% 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.

3.5
Deborah Ellis
247W–121L career · 2 lines in 2022
<1%85%15%
3.36
Mary Anne Acer
145W–110L career · 4 lines in 2022
<1%86%14%
3.36
3.5
Blythe Brown
67W–69L career · 6 lines in 2022
<1%87%12%
3.35
3.5
Barbara Koch
19W–25L career · type S · 4 lines in 2022
not enough data
Karen Heyob
118W–99L career · 5 lines in 2022
19%80%<1%
3.11
Sara Harris
37W–23L career · 2 lines in 2022
<1%57%43%
2.98
3
Cynthia Pawlarczyk
151W–208L career · 3 lines in 2022
<1%80%20%
2.89
Sarah Lukach
53W–76L career · 4 lines in 2022
4%94%2%
2.72
Lisa Westwater
22W–8L career · 2 lines in 2022
not enough data
Susan Steffen
66W–55L career · 6 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.