Teams

Zack - Manor

2025 Montgomery Combo Fall · Montgomery Combo Fall 6.5 Women

13 players · average NTRP 3.33 / MARYLAND

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2025-11-17vs Cornelius - Corn ChaosWon 30
W#1 DoublesDenise Plude / Vanessa Provencher vs Helen Chao / Jane Davenport6-2, 6-3
W#2 DoublesAshley Johnson / Melissa Galloway vs Sanam Boroumand / Jami Kempf6-1, 6-0
W#3 DoublesKaren Dugan / Mary Ferentinos vs Kerry Mustico / Jill Wiener6-0, 7-6
2025-10-24vs Cornelius - Corn ChaosLost 12
L#1 DoublesKaren Dugan / Maureen Smith vs Jane Davenport / Jocelyn Lin5-7, 5-4
W#2 DoublesVanessa Provencher / Denise Plude vs Grace Wei / Megan Rappolt6-1, 6-2
L#3 DoublesMary Ferentinos / Susan Grimberg vs Kerry Mustico / Sara Zalowitz6-7, 0-6
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 Montgomery Combo Fall 6.5 Women 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 3.08 estimated across 6 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.

3.47
Dawn Willard
published 3.5
Diana DePaul
published 3.5
3.23
Maureen Smith
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.20
3.00
Cybelle Long
published 3.5
2.96
Ashley Johnson
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.64
Denise Plude
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 3
Julie Gutierrez
published
Karen Dugan
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
Mary Ferentinos
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Sherifa Fahmy
published
Susan Grimberg
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Vanessa Provencher
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 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.

Denise Plude + Cybelle Long1436% games−3.5% vs expected
Mary Ferentinos + Karen Dugan4153% gamesnot enough data
Denise Plude + Vanessa Provencher314 matchesnot enough data
Dawn Willard + Ashley Johnson303 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.

3.5
Dawn Willard
4W–0L career · no lines in 2025
<1%58%42%
3.47
3.5
Diana DePaul
0W–5L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Maureen Smith
3W–7L career · 1 line in 2025
5%92%3%
3.23
3.5
Christina Shioutakon
2W–1L career · no lines in 2025
8%91%2%
3.20
3.5
Cybelle Long
1W–6L career · type S · no lines in 2025
50%50%<1%
3.00
3
Ashley Johnson
8W–1L career · type S · 1 line in 2025
<1%63%37%
2.96
3
Denise Plude
4W–6L career · type S · 2 lines in 2025
16%83%<1%
2.64
Julie Gutierrez
0W–2L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Karen Dugan
4W–4L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Mary Ferentinos
4W–4L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Sherifa Fahmy
2W–1L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Susan Grimberg
0W–1L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Vanessa Provencher
3W–3L 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.