Teams

LATA18/Larkins/CTFC

2022 Combo 18 & Over-STA · Adult Women - 6.5

16 players · average NTRP 3.43 / SOUTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2022-07-28vs LATA18/Cold/LCCWon 10
W#3 DoublesKelly Larkins / Alison Eaker vs Judith Bessinger / Christina Harman4-6, 6-1, 1-0
2022-07-25vs LATA18/Feaster/LCTCWon 10
W#2 DoublesAlison Eaker / Stefanie Carpenter vs Gloria Caballero / Katherine Taylor6-2, 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 Adult Women - 6.5 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 3.00 estimated across 15 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.

3.59
Catherine Lesser
published 4
3.54
Dana Burke
published 4
3.33
Traci Gilden
published
3.25
Cathy Greenwood
published 3.5
3.21
Stefanie Carpenter
published
3.18
Meg Estes
published
3.04
Tracy Corson
published
3.01
Kimberly Sox
published
3.00
Anne Mangubat
published 3.5
2.97
Janet Buhrow
published
2.72
Elisabeth Walter
published 3
2.60
Roxana Meetze
published
2.54
Greer Mac Adams
published 3
2.51
Alison Eaker
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3
2.47
Meredith Horton
published
Kelly Larkins
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.

Tracy Corson + Elisabeth Walter7168% games+6.7% vs expected
Janet Buhrow + Kimberly Sox3262% games+3.3% vs expected
Elisabeth Walter + Greer Mac Adams4355% games+3.1% vs expected
Meredith Horton + Anne Mangubat2643% games−3.7% vs expected
Meredith Horton + Alison Eaker3353% gamesnot enough data
Kelly Larkins + Anne Mangubat134 matchesnot enough data
Kelly Larkins + Cathy Greenwood224 matchesnot enough data
Meredith Horton + Elisabeth Walter213 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
Catherine Lesser
77W–72L career · no lines in 2022
23%76%<1%
3.59
4
Dana Burke
61W–28L career · no lines in 2022
38%62%<1%
3.54
Traci Gilden
38W–19L career · no lines in 2022
1%90%9%
3.33
3.5
Cathy Greenwood
56W–45L career · no lines in 2022
3%95%3%
3.25
Stefanie Carpenter
10W–16L career · no lines in 2022
6%93%1%
3.21
Meg Estes
31W–41L career · no lines in 2022
9%91%1%
3.18
Tracy Corson
139W–65L career · no lines in 2022
<1%37%63%
3.04
Kimberly Sox
8W–10L career · no lines in 2022
47%53%<1%
3.01
3.5
Anne Mangubat
56W–89L career · no lines in 2022
48%52%<1%
3.00
Janet Buhrow
52W–67L career · no lines in 2022
59%41%<1%
2.97
3
Elisabeth Walter
89W–69L career · no lines in 2022
4%94%2%
2.72
Roxana Meetze
4W–7L career · no lines in 2022
23%77%<1%
2.60
3
Greer Mac Adams
44W–33L career · no lines in 2022
38%62%<1%
2.54
3
Alison Eaker
70W–99L career · type A · 2 lines in 2022
47%53%<1%
2.51
Meredith Horton
62W–90L career · no lines in 2022
60%40%<1%
2.47
Kelly Larkins
69W–66L career · no lines in 2022
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.