Teams

KH:Tri 4.0:Shiro

2025 SCT Tri-Level Women's 3.0-5.0 · 4.0 Women's Tri-Level 1

6 players · average NTRP 4.25 / SOUTHERN CONNECTICUT

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 →
Schedule7 played
2025-11-14vs NC:Tri 4.0 Temerowski:TemerowskiLost 01
L#1 DoublesElizabeth Koncz / Erin Harris vs Amanda Aulakh / ADRIENNE FULK4-6, 6-2, 0-1
2025-10-17vs CP:Tri 4.0 Watts/BryanLost 01
L#1 DoublesLindsay Koltay / Christina OHagan vs Sara Watts / Amanda Bryan3-6, 6-4, 1-0
2025-10-12vs NC:Tri 4.0 Temerowski:TemerowskiWon 10
W#1 DoublesLindsay Koltay / Marisa Ehrlich-Siegel vs Charlotte Allen / Agnes Temerowski2-6, 7-6
2025-10-06vs CP:Tri 4.0 Watts/BryanLost 01
L#1 DoublesErin Harris / Elizabeth Koncz vs Sara Watts / Amanda Bryan7-5, 3-6, 0-1
2025-09-29vs CP:Smash Sisters:HoffmanWon 10
W#1 DoublesCintia Shiro / Elizabeth Koncz vs Laurie Hoffman / Louise Barclay7-6, 6-4
2025-09-27vs CP:Smash Sisters:HoffmanWon 10
W#1 DoublesLindsay Koltay / Christina OHagan vs Jayne Jepsen / Laura Cramer7-6, 6-5
2025-09-23vs CP: New Tri Women:McKinneyWon 10
W#1 DoublesCintia Shiro / Erin Harris vs Courtney McKinney / Anne Silvey7-6, 6-1
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 standings5 teams · 4.0 Women's Tri-Level 1
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1KH:Tri 4.0:Shiro0733771
2CP: New Tri Women:McKinney0743869
3CP:Tri 4.0 Watts/Bryan0871563
4NC:Tri 4.0 Temerowski:Temerowski08251287
5CP:Smash Sisters:Hoffman08261292

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 3.92 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.

4.13
Cintia Shiro
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
4.00
Christina OHagan
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.93
Elizabeth Koncz
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.91
Lindsay Koltay
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.91
Erin Harris
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.61
Marisa Ehrlich-Siegel
usually #1 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.

Erin Harris + Cintia Shiro6153% games+2.4% vs expected
Erin Harris + Christina OHagan9453% games−1.1% vs expected
Lindsay Koltay + Christina OHagan213 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.

4.5
Cintia Shiro
264W–196L career · 2 lines in 2025
17%82%<1%
4.13
4
Christina OHagan
42W–16L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%51%49%
4.00
Elizabeth Koncz
36W–22L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%68%32%
3.93
Lindsay Koltay
7W–1L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%73%27%
3.91
Erin Harris
213W–76L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%74%26%
3.91
Marisa Ehrlich-Siegel
45W–17L career · 1 line in 2025
21%79%<1%
3.61

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.