Teams

High Strung 3.5

Fall Adult 18 & Over WeekEND (Non-Adv) · Womens 3.5

19 players · average NTRP 3.62 / TEXAS

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 →

Flight standings for Womens 3.5 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 3.06 estimated across 15 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.

Danielle Miller
published 4
3.43
Alexis Fischer
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.33
Erica Ragusa
published
3.26
Robyn Winz
published
3.24
Tricia Eaton
published
3.23
Annelise Morgan
published 3.5
3.16
Sheila Shung
published
3.10
Kate Bludworth
published
3.09
Maureen Carlson
published
3.07
Laura Li
published
3.04
Cristina Lima Grinda
usually #1 Doubles 86%, also #1 Singles 14% · published 3.5
2.94
Margaret Williams
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
2.88
Mari Boren
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.85
Sun Kwon
usually #2 Singles 100% · published
2.68
Jocelyn Chiu
published
2.63
Tina Ho
usually #2 Doubles 57%, also #3 Doubles 29% · published
Heather Way
published
Melissa Hamilton
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Sarah Marsh
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.

Robyn Winz + Cristina Lima Grinda4167% games+17.3% vs expected
Tricia Eaton + Maureen Carlson7171% games+11.4% vs expected
Kate Bludworth + Tricia Eaton14266% games+7.4% vs expected
Mari Boren + Cristina Lima Grinda7262% games+7.2% vs expected
Sheila Shung + Mari Boren211260% games+3.2% vs expected
Kate Bludworth + Maureen Carlson12662% games+1.5% vs expected
Sheila Shung + Laura Li4156% gamesnot enough data
Alexis Fischer + Sheila Shung224 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.

4
Danielle Miller
3W–2L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
3.5
Alexis Fischer
38W–31L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%70%30%
3.43
Erica Ragusa
41W–10L career · no lines in 2026
1%88%11%
3.33
Robyn Winz
32W–17L career · no lines in 2026
3%93%4%
3.26
Tricia Eaton
47W–12L career · no lines in 2026
4%93%3%
3.24
3.5
Annelise Morgan
25W–10L career · no lines in 2026
5%92%3%
3.23
Sheila Shung
48W–24L career · no lines in 2026
13%86%1%
3.16
Kate Bludworth
87W–47L career · no lines in 2026
23%77%<1%
3.10
Maureen Carlson
33W–16L career · no lines in 2026
26%74%<1%
3.09
Laura Li
24W–8L career · no lines in 2026
30%70%<1%
3.07
3.5
Cristina Lima Grinda
25W–19L career · type A · 7 lines in 2026
39%61%<1%
3.04
Margaret Williams
28W–16L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%67%33%
2.94
Mari Boren
44W–18L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%79%20%
2.88
Sun Kwon
8W–5L career · 4 lines in 2026
1%85%15%
2.85
Jocelyn Chiu
5W–4L career · no lines in 2026
10%89%1%
2.68
Tina Ho
57W–61L career · 7 lines in 2026
17%82%<1%
2.63
Heather Way
11W–9L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Melissa Hamilton
2W–3L career · 1 line in 2026
not enough data
Sarah Marsh
6W–6L career · no lines in 2026
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.