Teams

YMCA Swecker

2025 OH OV SUMMER Mixed 18&O Charleston · 2025 MXD 18&O 6.0 Charleston

10 players · average NTRP 3.00 / 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 →
Schedule3 played
2025-08-13vs CTC HussellLost 12
W#1 DoublesMarjorie Swecker / Michael Jarrett vs Ursula Suson / Brad Hatcher6-1, 6-4
L#2 DoublesSusan Jarvis / JL Swecker vs Erik Engle / Caitlin Farmer3-6, 4-6
L#3 DoublesMary Neenan / Thomas Apperson vs Jim Kirk / Laken Ball3-6, 3-6
2025-07-20vs CTC HussellLost 12
W#1 DoublesMarjorie Swecker / Kevin Tate vs Holly Wilson / Jim Kirk7-5, 7-5
L#2 DoublesJanet James / Michael Jarrett vs Crystal Bastin / Brad Hatcher6-1, 4-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesJL Swecker / Susan Jarvis vs Shawn Ball / Laken Ball5-7, 6-4, 0-1
2025-06-26vs CTC HussellLost 02
L#2 DoublesThomas Apperson / Mary Neenan vs Holly Wilson / Jim Kirk0-6, 0-6
L#3 DoublesJanet James / JL Swecker vs Brad Hatcher / Caitlin Farmer6-4, 3-6, 1-0
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 2025 MXD 18&O 6.0 Charleston 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 2.98 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.

3.23
Marjorie Swecker
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.98
Dana Eddy
published 3
2.98
Kevin Tate
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.75
JL Swecker
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3
Janet James
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
Jason Tate
published
Lauren Sutphin
published
Mary Neenan
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
Susan Jarvis
published
Thomas Apperson
usually #3 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.

Mary Neenan + Thomas Apperson0517% gamesnot enough data
Marjorie Swecker + Dana Eddy213 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.

Marjorie Swecker
66W–46L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%4%96%
3.23
3
Dana Eddy
61W–106L career · no lines in 2025
<1%57%43%
2.98
Kevin Tate
30W–33L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%58%42%
2.98
3
JL Swecker
13W–31L career · 3 lines in 2025
3%95%3%
2.75
Janet James
35W–45L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Jason Tate
23W–23L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Lauren Sutphin
41W–57L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Mary Neenan
5W–33L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Susan Jarvis
5W–11L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Thomas Apperson
3W–16L career · 2 lines in 2025
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.