Teams

Stephanie Wachob

2025 Springfield Adult 18 & Over Fall Leagues · 3.0 Fall Adult Women

8 players · average NTRP 2.50 / MISSOURI

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2024-10-22vs Emmilyn MurphyLost 01
L#1 DoublesSusan Mayr / Kenya Pearman vs Lori Hunt / Catherine Schmittling4-6, 2-6
2024-10-15vs Emmilyn MurphyLost 01
L#1 DoublesSusan Mayr / Tijuana Julian vs Catherine Schmittling / Diane Hays5-7, 3-6
2024-10-08vs Lori HuntSplit 11
L#1 DoublesKenya Pearman / Tijuana Julian vs Nicole Liljenquist / Stephanie Turk7-5, 4-6, 0-1
W#2 DoublesSusan Mayr / Jennifer Cotner-Jones vs Diane Hays / Diane Jewell6-1, 6-2
2024-10-01vs Emmilyn MurphyLost 02
L#1 DoublesTijuana Julian / Jennifer Cotner-Jones vs Lori Hunt / Catherine Schmittling1-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesCathy Knight / Madison Noe vs Nicole Liljenquist / Diane Hays5-7, 5-7
2024-09-24vs Lori HuntSplit 11
W#1 DoublesSusan Mayr / Kenya Pearman vs Stephanie Turk / Susan Tolbert6-2, 7-6
L#2 DoublesTijuana Julian / Isabella Rosas vs Diane Jewell / Nicole Liljenquist1-6, 6-7
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 standings1 teams · 3.0 Fall Adult Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Stephanie Wachob0521326173

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 2.86 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.

3.32
Stephanie Wachob
usually #1 Doubles 57%, also #2 Doubles 29% · published
2.89
Kenya Pearman
usually #1 Doubles 86%, also #2 Doubles 14% · published
2.78
Tijuana Julian
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
2.45
Cathy Knight
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
Isabella Rosas
usually #1 Singles 71%, also #1 Doubles 14% · published
Jennifer Cotner-Jones
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
Madison Noe
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Susan Mayr
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.

Susan Mayr + Kenya Pearman2732% games−11.3% vs expected
Tijuana Julian + Kenya Pearman4354% gamesnot enough data
Tijuana Julian + Susan Mayr123 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.

Stephanie Wachob
55W–57L career · 7 lines in 2025
1%89%10%
3.32
Kenya Pearman
27W–37L career · 7 lines in 2025
79%21%<1%
2.89
Tijuana Julian
21W–76L career · 4 lines in 2025
94%6%<1%
2.78
2.5
Cathy Knight
17W–49L career · 6 lines in 2025
0%65%35%
2.45
Isabella Rosas
0W–7L career · 7 lines in 2025
not enough data
Jennifer Cotner-Jones
5W–11L career · 6 lines in 2025
not enough data
Madison Noe
2W–11L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Susan Mayr
18W–54L career · 4 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.