3WESS-Brown 30 WOMEN Fall SINGLES F3
2025 cSEM FALL TEAM SINGLES · WOMEN 3.0 SINGLES SEM
11 players · average NTRP 3.06 / S.E. MICHIGAN
No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.
Schedule10 played
i
Flight standings16 teams · WOMEN 3.0 SINGLES SEM
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11SCWB-Du 30 WOMEN Fall SINGLES F3 | 10 | 0 | 12 | 157 |
| 23HV-Moore 30 WOMEN Fall SINGLES F1 | 8 | 1 | 7 | 123 |
| 34EAST-Thomas 30 WOMEN Fall SINGLES F2 | 7 | 3 | 16 | 166 |
| 44WESS-Wehbe 30 WOMEN Fall SINGLES F3 | 7 | 3 | 30 | 236 |
| 56EAST-Horn 30 WOMEN Fall SINGLES F2 | 6 | 4 | 29 | 233 |
| 62TROY-Hovey 30 WOMEN Fall SINGLES F2 | 6 | 4 | 30 | 238 |
| 74LIB-Inoue 30 WOMEN Fall SINGLES F1 | 5 | 4 | 24 | 196 |
| 82FAC-Lewis 30 WOMEN Fall SINGLES F1 | 5 | 4 | 29 | 209 |
| 91TROY-Li 30 WOMEN Fall SINGLES F2 | 5 | 5 | 31 | 243 |
| 103WESS-Brown 30 WOMEN Fall SINGLES F3 | 4 | 6 | 30 | 247 |
| 112SCWB-Flannery 30 WOMEN Fall SINGLES F2 | 3 | 7 | 32 | 251 |
| 125LT-Dejaeger 30 WOMEN Fall SINGLES F3 | 3 | 7 | 35 | 238 |
| 135EAST-Lukas 30 WOMEN Fall SINGLES F2 | 3 | 7 | 36 | 245 |
| 146WESS-Smiley Studier 30 WOMEN Fall SINGLES F3 | 3 | 7 | 37 | 263 |
| 153BRC- Scott 30 WOMEN Fall SINGLES F2 | 3 | 7 | 39 | 278 |
| 161FAC-Brooks 30 WOMEN Fall SINGLES F1 | 0 | 9 | 48 | 289 |
Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.
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 2.81 estimated across 10 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.
Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.
| Nina Brown + Matraca Kolb | 4–1 | 63% games | +19.2% vs expected |
| Annie Bakken + Nina Brown | 6–2 | 57% games | +2.1% vs expected |
| Lina Carouba + Lily Bakleh | 38–24 | 56% games | +0.7% vs expected |
| Terri Griffin + Nina Brown | 3–3 | 56% games | not enough data |
| Terri Griffin + Lina Carouba | 4–0 | 4 matches | not enough data |
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.
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.