4WESS-DIMSDALE AD40&O 40NW TH SEM F4
2023 SEM ADULT 40 & OVER NIGHT WOMEN · 4.0 WOMEN THUR PM SEM
15 players · average NTRP 3.50 / 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.
Schedule9 played
i
Flight standings16 teams · 4.0 WOMEN THUR PM SEM
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11BT-BARLOW AD40&O 40NW TH SEM F4 | 9 | 0 | 32 | 328 |
| 22BRC-ENDRUD AD40&O 40NW TH SEM F1 | 9 | 0 | 35 | 345 |
| 34LIB-SAULD AD40&O 40NW TH SEM F2 | 8 | 1 | 19 | 278 |
| 41DEER-JOSEPH AD40&O 40NW TH SEM F3 | 7 | 1 | 24 | 284 |
| 52FAC-STEINER AD40&O 40NW TH SEM F4 | 6 | 3 | 33 | 308 |
| 64TROY-LIVINGSTON AD40&O 40NW TH SEM F1 | 6 | 3 | 40 | 351 |
| 73CHIP-DELANGE AD40&O 40NW TH SEM F2 | 6 | 3 | 50 | 379 |
| 83WESS-JOSIFOVSKI AD40&O 40NW TH SEM F3 | 3 | 2 | 31 | 238 |
| 92BT-DEKAR AD40&O 40NW TH SEM F3 | 3 | 4 | 41 | 306 |
| 103NAC-PALENTINO AD40&O 40NW TH SEM F4 | 3 | 6 | 53 | 395 |
| 111LIFE-LAMBRECHT AD40&O 40NW TH SEM F1 | 3 | 6 | 55 | 433 |
| 121HV-COOPER AD40&O 40NW TH SEM F2 | 2 | 7 | 62 | 448 |
| 132TP-SHELL AD40&O 40NW TH SEM F2 | 2 | 7 | 69 | 481 |
| 144PEACH-MAHER AD40&O 40NW TH SEM F3 | 1 | 7 | 57 | 412 |
| 153TROY-DUBAY AD40&O 40NW TH SEM F1 | 0 | 9 | 75 | 488 |
| 164WESS-DIMSDALE AD40&O 40NW TH SEM F4 | 0 | 9 | 81 | 505 |
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 3.27 estimated across 11 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.
| Ann Marie Valentine + Marianna Perakis | 27–5 | 64% games | +8.4% vs expected |
| Tracy Lamerato + Barbara Lindeblad | 29–12 | 57% games | +4.2% vs expected |
| Amy Hasselbring + Donyel Renaud | 7–8 | 48% games | +2.1% vs expected |
| Kristin Dimsdale + Mary Beth Segerlind | 1–4 | 48% games | +0.7% vs expected |
| Julie Farnsworth + Christine Scott | 7–12 | 41% games | −4.5% vs expected |
| Christine Scott + Kristin Dimsdale | 7–14 | 42% games | −9.6% vs expected |
| Angela Fontair + Mary Beth Segerlind | 0–5 | 36% games | not enough data |
| Amy Hasselbring + Megan Barnes | 3–2 | 59% games | 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.