Teams

Cooper

2024 FW Tri-Level · Womens 4.0-4.5-5.0

8 players · average NTRP 4.83 / TEXAS

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2024-11-03vs BusbyWon 20
W#1 DoublesCarla Cooper / Meaghan Ocanas vs Melissa Coburn / Lauren Gremminger6-1, 7-5
W#2 DoublesTeresa Merklin / Jody Hassemer vs Corrine Quast / Cherrie Ibbott6-2, 6-3
2024-11-02vs BusbyWon 21
W#1 DoublesCarla Cooper / Chrissie Cooper vs Melissa Coburn / Linley Busby6-1, 6-2
W#2 DoublesBrooke Cabianca / Jody Hassemer vs Melinda Mooney / Corrine Quast6-4, 6-4
L#3 DoublesMozhdeh Asadidezfouli / Martha Davis vs Leslie Eugenio / Andree Kale2-6, 4-6
2024-11-01vs BusbyLost 03
L#1 DoublesChrissie Cooper / Meaghan Ocanas vs Lynsie Jones / Melissa Coburn5-7, 1-6
L#2 DoublesBrooke Cabianca / Teresa Merklin vs Laura Jacobi / Vanessa Kelley7-5, 4-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesMozhdeh Asadidezfouli / Sandi Shipley vs Andree Kale / Chelsea James1-6, 1-6
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 Womens 4.0-4.5-5.0 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 4.26 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.

4.81
Carla Cooper
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 5
4.26
Chrissie Cooper
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 5
4.23
Teresa Merklin
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
4.23
Brooke Cabianca
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
4.11
Jody Hassemer
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.94
Sandi Shipley
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
Meaghan Ocanas
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Mozhdeh Asadidezfouli
usually #3 Doubles 100% · 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.

Chrissie Cooper + Carla Cooper4353% games+13.9% vs expected
Carla Cooper + Meaghan Ocanas6068% gamesnot enough data
Brooke Cabianca + Jody Hassemer404 matchesnot enough data
Chrissie Cooper + Meaghan Ocanas033 matchesnot enough data
Teresa Merklin + Jody Hassemer213 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.

5
Carla Cooper
19W–14L career · 2 lines in 2024
1%92%7%
4.81
5
Chrissie Cooper
6W–9L career · 2 lines in 2024
96%4%<1%
4.26
Teresa Merklin
22W–21L career · 2 lines in 2024
4%94%2%
4.23
4.5
Brooke Cabianca
38W–19L career · 2 lines in 2024
4%94%2%
4.23
Jody Hassemer
30W–17L career · 2 lines in 2024
20%80%<1%
4.11
Sandi Shipley
38W–22L career · 3 lines in 2024
<1%68%32%
3.94
Meaghan Ocanas
12W–7L career · 2 lines in 2024
not enough data
Mozhdeh Asadidezfouli
0W–5L career · 2 lines in 2024
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.