6CHIP-SWANSON 25NW MO 18&O SEM F4
2025 bSEM ADULT 18 & OVER NIGHT WOMEN · 2.5 WOMEN MON PM SEM
12 players · average NTRP 2.50 / 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 standings23 teams · 2.5 WOMEN MON PM SEM
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14WESS-STICKNEY 25NW MO 18&O SEM F3 | 8 | 1 | 20 | 191 |
| 26BRC-PARSONS 25NW MO 18&O SEM F1 | 7 | 1 | 18 | 171 |
| 31WESS-SCHEPPER 25NW MO 18&O SEM F5 | 7 | 2 | 16 | 149 |
| 42AAREC-PIO-CHIEN 25NW MO 18&O SEM F4 | 7 | 3 | 27 | 221 |
| 51MONY-COLLINS 25NW MO 18&O SEM F4 | 7 | 3 | 29 | 264 |
| 65DCD-SINGER 25NW MO 18&O SEM F1 | 6 | 2 | 22 | 191 |
| 74EAST-MOORE 25NW MO 18&O SEM F2 | 6 | 3 | 18 | 163 |
| 81PH-NEATON 25NW MO 18&O SEM F2 | 6 | 3 | 25 | 199 |
| 92BEV-WHEELER 25NW MO 18&O SEM F5 | 6 | 3 | 28 | 231 |
| 105LIB-PETTIE 25NW MO 18&O SEM F4 | 6 | 4 | 30 | 244 |
| 113PINE-inside-CONROY 25NW MO 18&O SEM F3 | 5 | 4 | 25 | 208 |
| 121HAWK-EWERS 25NW MO 18&O SEM F3 | 5 | 4 | 30 | 241 |
| 133RCAA-BARRETT 25NW MO 18&O SEM F4 | 5 | 5 | 27 | 259 |
| 143FAC-MEDINA 25NW MO 18&O SEM F5 | 4 | 5 | 34 | 235 |
| 154HV-WASHINGTON 25NW MO 18&O SEM F4 | 4 | 6 | 35 | 279 |
| 164OHCC-RUSSELL 25NW MO 18&O SEM F1 | 3 | 5 | 34 | 232 |
| 173LIFE-EDWARDS 25NW MO 18&O SEM F2 | 3 | 6 | 36 | 239 |
| 182TROY-KARAMON 25NW MO 18&O SEM F2 | 3 | 6 | 41 | 284 |
| 191BOH-ACCIAIOLI 25NW MO 18&O SEM F1 | 2 | 6 | 32 | 225 |
| 203FOREST-VANI 25NW MO 18&O SEM F1 | 2 | 6 | 35 | 231 |
| 214DEER-NOVITSKY 25NW MO 18&O SEM F5 | 1 | 8 | 38 | 277 |
| 226CHIP-SWANSON 25NW MO 18&O SEM F4 | 1 | 9 | 55 | 332 |
| 232DCD-MCCROSSEN 25NW MO 18&O SEM F3 | 0 | 9 | 46 | 283 |
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 2.20 estimated across 9 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.
| Jing Bai + Lani Bausewein | 3–2 | 48% games | not enough data |
| Donna Wicker + Lin van Nieuwstadt | 2–2 | 4 matches | not enough data |
| Lin van Nieuwstadt + Lani Bausewein | 2–2 | 4 matches | not enough data |
| Shilpa Kharecha + Yue Guo | 1–2 | 3 matches | not enough data |
| Jan Pemberton + Victoria Bevan | 1–2 | 3 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.