Teams

NITA S 75CWa TAM (Farinas)

2022 NITA3 Summerz Combo · 7.5 Summer Combo

17 players · average NTRP 4.04 / 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
W#1 DoublesKristine Jurczyk / Elleson Song vs Zagorka James / Allycn Grcevic6-1, 6-4
W#2 DoublesDenise Lam / Huan Chang vs Becky Sharp / Joy Mullady6-1, 6-2
W#1 DoublesMartha Davis / Elleson Song vs Colleen Doyle / Amy Harper6-2, 6-4
W#2 DoublesDenise Lam / Chica Ida vs Ilona LaRoche / J Mosca6-0, 6-2
W#1 DoublesMartha Davis / Jennifer Peck vs Catherine Wasylenko / Mary Jo Kamarauskas6-2, 6-1
W#2 DoublesHuan Chang / Patricia Bustamante vs Lily Shinn / Diedre Castaldo6-2, 6-1
L#3 DoublesRochelle Probst / Sophia Chang Stauffer vs Allycn Grcevic / Becky Sharp4-6, 3-6
L#1 DoublesChristine Campanelli / Patricia Bustamante vs Ilona LaRoche / Colleen Doyle6-7, 2-6
W#2 DoublesSue Lehrer / Jennifer Peck vs Claire Ralphs / J Mosca6-2, 7-5
W#3 DoublesDenise Lam / Jean Soh vs Lori Mills / Kem Jennings6-2, 6-1
L#1 DoublesChica Ida / Denise Lam vs Colleen Doyle / Ilona LaRoche1-6, 6-2, 1-0
W#2 DoublesJennifer Peck / Courtney Tornow vs Claire Ralphs / Tavia Young6-0, 6-3
W#3 DoublesRochelle Probst / Rebecca Daly vs Michelle Dougherty / Kem Jennings6-2, 6-2
W#1 DoublesPatricia Bustamante / Christine Campanelli vs Zagorka James / Elisabeth Sanders6-2, 6-1
W#2 DoublesKristine Jurczyk / Elleson Song vs Diedre Castaldo / Lily Shinn7-5, 6-3
W#3 DoublesRochelle Probst / Rebecca Daly vs Cindy Monahan / Susan Papiernik6-3, 6-1
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 standings3 teams · 7.5 Summer Combo
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1NITA S 75CWa TAM (Farinas)6013510111
2NITA S 75CWb Five Star (Delgrosso)2471124166
3NITA S 75CWc Challenge Fitness (Kennedy/Mullady)1571122163

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 3.80 estimated across 13 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.

4.33
Christine Campanelli
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4.5
4.24
Chica Ida
usually #1 Doubles 80%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published 4.5
3.96
Huan Chang
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.94
Sophia Chang Stauffer
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.92
Elleson Song
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.90
Kristine Jurczyk
usually #2 Doubles 40%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published 4.5
3.82
Jean Soh
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.79
Courtney Tornow
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.65
Patricia Bustamante
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.61
Denise Lam
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.56
Martha Davis
usually #1 Doubles 80%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published
3.51
Rebecca Daly
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.12
Rochelle Probst
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Jennifer Peck
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
Sue Lehrer
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · 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.

Kristine Jurczyk + Jennifer Peck12271% games+15.8% vs expected
Sue Lehrer + Christine Campanelli23368% games+14.2% vs expected
Chica Ida + Kristine Jurczyk10070% games+14.1% vs expected
Christine Campanelli + Jennifer Peck11363% games+13.3% vs expected
Martha Davis + Chica Ida13164% games+9.9% vs expected
Fra Angelica Farinas- Wright + Denise Lam5263% games+9.7% vs expected
Jean Soh + Kristine Jurczyk15167% games+9.5% vs expected
Martha Davis + Rebecca Daly7260% games+6.7% vs expected
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
Christine Campanelli
302W–137L career · 6 lines in 2022
1%90%10%
4.33
4.5
Chica Ida
281W–105L career · 5 lines in 2022
3%94%2%
4.24
4
Huan Chang
201W–143L career · 3 lines in 2022
<1%61%39%
3.96
4
Sophia Chang Stauffer
97W–67L career · 1 line in 2022
<1%67%33%
3.94
4
Elleson Song
87W–29L career · 3 lines in 2022
<1%72%28%
3.92
4.5
Kristine Jurczyk
333W–130L career · 5 lines in 2022
77%23%<1%
3.90
4
Jean Soh
468W–283L career · 1 line in 2022
1%91%8%
3.82
4
Angela Anglin Weathers
130W–94L career · no lines in 2022
1%94%5%
3.79
4
Courtney Tornow
69W–32L career · 3 lines in 2022
not enough data
4
Patricia Bustamante
123W–102L career · 3 lines in 2022
12%88%<1%
3.65
3.5
Denise Lam
320W–95L career · 4 lines in 2022
<1%20%80%
3.61
Martha Davis
349W–162L career · 5 lines in 2022
33%67%<1%
3.56
Rebecca Daly
129W–147L career · 2 lines in 2022
48%52%<1%
3.51
3.5
Fra Angelica Farinas- Wright
70W–29L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Rochelle Probst
67W–49L career · 3 lines in 2022
17%83%<1%
3.12
Jennifer Peck
115W–55L career · 6 lines in 2022
not enough data
Sue Lehrer
84W–23L career · 2 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.