Teams

Sudderth

2024 FW Tri-Level · Womens 3.0-3.5-4.0

11 players · average NTRP 3.50 / TEXAS

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2024-11-03vs Toups/ChuLost 12
L#1 DoublesSusan Huber / Katie Springer vs Lauren Ringel / Maddie Marney4-6, 6-2, 0-1
W#2 DoublesBlair Small / Laura Stein vs Tandra Langford / Barbara King6-0, 6-2
L#3 DoublesKelley Henderson / Melis Carpenter vs Molly Milner / Charissa Kumar6-7, 4-6
2024-11-02vs SingletonLost 03
L#1 DoublesMeg Pope / Susan Huber vs Na Tran / Elise Jeffery0-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesLaura Stein / Melis Carpenter vs Eiko Ishida / Melissa Watson7-6, 2-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesBonnie Sudderth / Kelley Henderson vs Laura Randoll / Heather Wright4-6, 2-6
2024-11-01vs PattesonWon 21
W#1 DoublesMeg Pope / Katie Springer vs Meredith Rhodes / Jessica Patteson6-4, 6-4
L#2 DoublesShannon Mulroy / Blair Small vs Erika McCann / Jennifer Richter3-6, 4-6
W#3 DoublesMelis Carpenter / Nancy Jeter vs Jessica Hughes / Danielle Andrus6-3, 6-3
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 standings for Womens 3.0-3.5-4.0 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 3.24 estimated across 10 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.

3.80
Katie Springer
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.68
Blair Small
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.29
Susan Huber
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.28
Laura Stein
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.24
Meg Pope
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.13
Shannon Mulroy
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.06
Lindsey Childs
published
3.03
Melis Carpenter
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.00
Nancy Jeter
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.86
Bonnie Sudderth
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
Kelley Henderson
usually #3 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.

Laura Stein + Blair Small123 matchesnot enough data
Katie Springer + Susan Huber123 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.

Katie Springer
27W–11L career · 2 lines in 2024
1%93%6%
3.80
4
Blair Small
29W–5L career · 2 lines in 2024
9%91%1%
3.68
Susan Huber
15W–29L career · 2 lines in 2024
1%93%5%
3.29
Laura Stein
12W–6L career · 2 lines in 2024
1%94%5%
3.28
Meg Pope
10W–30L career · 2 lines in 2024
98%2%<1%
3.24
Shannon Mulroy
31W–29L career · 1 line in 2024
15%85%<1%
3.13
Lindsey Childs
17W–5L career · no lines in 2024
<1%33%67%
3.06
Melis Carpenter
24W–15L career · 3 lines in 2024
<1%41%59%
3.03
Nancy Jeter
13W–19L career · 1 line in 2024
<1%50%50%
3.00
3
Bonnie Sudderth
55W–46L career · 1 line in 2024
<1%85%15%
2.86
Kelley Henderson
2W–7L career · 2 lines in 2024
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.