Teams

Apex:Doyle

2023 Fall Tri-Level · 4.0 Women

6 players · average NTRP 3.33 / MAINE

View scouting list →
Schedule8 played
2023-12-05vs FF:Mao’sters:MaoLost 01
L#1 DoublesHeidi Rentz / Diana Doyle vs Polly Colvin MacKenzie / Lisa Ford1-6, 1-6
2023-12-02vs Apex:McArdleLost 01
L#1 DoublesKathryn Brown / Sandy Manley vs Anne Vaillancourt / Meredith McArdle2-6, 7-5, 0-1
2023-10-23vs WOOD:BubbleTrouble:PondLost 01
L#1 DoublesSandy Manley / Kathryn Brown vs Susie Coughlin / Joanna Pond1-6, 3-6
2023-10-20vs Apex:ColpittsLost 01
L#1 DoublesDiana Doyle / Sandy Manley vs Niamh Colpitts / Ann Harradon6-4, 3-6, 0-1
2023-10-18vs Apex:ColpittsLost 01
L#1 DoublesDiana Doyle / Pauline Smith vs Holly Steele / Lynne Chicoine0-6, 0-6
2023-10-01vs FF:Mao’sters:MaoLost 01
L#1 DoublesHeidi Rentz / Pauline Smith vs Alice Wagg / Polly Colvin MacKenzie7-6, 0-6, 0-1
2023-09-26vs WOOD:BubbleTrouble:PondLost 01
L#1 DoublesCarol Kelley / Heidi Rentz vs Susie Coughlin / Heidi Allen3-6, 3-6
2023-09-17vs Apex:McArdleLost 01
L#1 DoublesHeidi Rentz / Carol Kelley vs Anne Vaillancourt / Meredith McArdle3-6, 6-7
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 standings9 teams · 4.0 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Apex:Konieczko6363772
2ACOPI:TryHarder:Holm6363776
3Apex:Colpitts5353754
4WOOD:BubbleTrouble:Pond5353766
5FF:Mao’sters:Mao5353861
6Apex:McArdle5353970
7Apex:Marroquin54541073
8Apex:DoubleTrouble:Kapothanasis18181696
9Apex:Doyle08081697

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 3.36 estimated across 4 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.

3.78
Sandy Manley
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.38
Carol Kelley
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.25
Heidi Rentz
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.03
Diana Doyle
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
Kathryn Brown
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Pauline Smith
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.

Diana Doyle + Heidi Rentz0612% games−14.5% vs expected
Pauline Smith + Diana Doyle044 matchesnot enough data
Carol Kelley + Heidi Rentz044 matchesnot enough data
Kathryn Brown + Diana Doyle033 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.

Sandy Manley
28W–16L career · 3 lines in 2023
2%94%4%
3.78
3.5
Carol Kelley
24W–21L career · 5 lines in 2023
<1%83%17%
3.38
3.5
Heidi Rentz
24W–46L career · 4 lines in 2023
3%95%2%
3.25
3
Diana Doyle
79W–151L career · 8 lines in 2023
<1%40%60%
3.03
Kathryn Brown
9W–16L career · 6 lines in 2023
not enough data
Pauline Smith
1W–9L career · 2 lines in 2023
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.