Teams

LV Girls-Tri

Tri-Level 4.0 (Advancing) · Women's Tri-Level 4.0

18 players · average NTRP 3.58 / EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2025-11-23vs Double TroubleLost 12
L#1 DoublesKim Ulrey / Candace Young vs Elaine Lawrence / JODI ESLINGER0-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesDiane Lyons / Karen Unglaub vs Ashley Farnesi / Anna Wasiuk4-6, 2-6
W#3 DoublesAnabela Araujo / Janet JenningsOchs vs Karen Huie / Karen Uhl6-2, 6-3
2025-11-02vs Double ShotsLost 12
L#1 DoublesShelley Berger / Torrie Kline vs Annie Duke / Patricia Keleman2-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesLisa Laputka / Lisa Tan vs Regina Carolan / Shin-Yi Chou2-6, 3-6
W#3 DoublesAnabela Araujo / TIFFANI CLARK vs Catherine Cummins / Wendy Worth6-4, 6-3
2025-10-26vs Double TroubleLost 12
L#1 DoublesNaomi Thorpe / Candace Young vs Avery McCall / JODI ESLINGER2-6, 6-4, 0-1
L#2 DoublesDiane Lyons / Gina Talarico vs Valerie Ali / VERONICA ELIAS5-7, 2-6
W#3 DoublesBeth Witte / TIFFANI CLARK vs Karen Uhl / Karen Huie6-4, 5-3
2025-10-25vs Double ShotsLost 12
L#1 DoublesTorrie Kline / Naomi Thorpe vs Patricia Keleman / Pikai Oh2-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesGina Talarico / Karen Unglaub vs Maggie O'Leary / Anna Zawierucha2-6, 7-5, 0-1
W#3 DoublesRutika Bhapkar / Leigh Gronau vs Maryann Baloh / Sharon Miller4-6, 7-6, 1-0
2025-10-12vs Double ShotsWon 30
W#1 DoublesDebra Lorah / Kim Ulrey vs Joan Kern / Kim Morris6-2, 3-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesGina Talarico / Lucy Tims vs Christie Bower / Deanne Milburn5-7, 7-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesRutika Bhapkar / Leigh Gronau vs Helen Matthews / Cathy Peoples7-5, 3-6, 1-0
2025-10-05vs Double TroubleLost 12
W#1 DoublesDebra Lorah / Naomi Thorpe vs Emily Clark / Elaine Lawrence6-2, 6-2
L#2 DoublesLisa Laputka / Karen Unglaub vs Valerie Ali / Marie L McCall3-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesLeigh Gronau / Janet JenningsOchs vs Shoshana Gosselin / Lisa Kirshner3-6, 2-6
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 Women's Tri-Level 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 3.28 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.

3.92
Naomi Thorpe
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
Candace Young
published 4
3.73
Torrie Kline
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.73
Debra Lorah
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.49
Shelley Berger
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.43
Kim Ulrey
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.38
Karen Unglaub
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.16
Gina Talarico
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.15
Lisa Laputka
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.13
Anabela Araujo
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.10
Diane Lyons
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.10
Lisa Tan
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.08
Rutika Bhapkar
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.95
Beth Witte
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.94
Leigh Gronau
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.88
Janet JenningsOchs
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
Lucy Tims
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
TIFFANI CLARK
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.

Janet JenningsOchs + Anabela Araujo6255% games+10.9% vs expected
Candace Young + Naomi Thorpe8358% games+9.1% vs expected
Debra Lorah + Janet JenningsOchs6556% games+3.8% vs expected
Debra Lorah + Torrie Kline5454% games+2.7% vs expected
Torrie Kline + Shelley Berger6450% games+1.0% vs expected
Janet JenningsOchs + Karen Unglaub12954% games−0.5% vs expected
Karen Unglaub + Anabela Araujo17754% games−0.5% vs expected
Debra Lorah + Naomi Thorpe11753% games−3.9% vs expected
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
Naomi Thorpe
198W–127L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%72%28%
3.92
4
Candace Young
41W–24L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
4
Torrie Kline
267W–176L career · 2 lines in 2025
4%94%2%
3.73
4
Debra Lorah
292W–215L career · 2 lines in 2025
4%94%2%
3.73
Shelley Berger
152W–152L career · 1 line in 2025
53%47%<1%
3.49
3.5
Kim Ulrey
110W–192L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%70%30%
3.43
3.5
Karen Unglaub
140W–135L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%83%17%
3.38
3.5
Gina Talarico
50W–62L career · 3 lines in 2025
11%88%<1%
3.16
3.5
Lisa Laputka
51W–104L career · 2 lines in 2025
12%87%<1%
3.15
3.5
Anabela Araujo
61W–50L career · 2 lines in 2025
15%84%<1%
3.13
3.5
Diane Lyons
63W–111L career · 2 lines in 2025
21%79%<1%
3.10
Lisa Tan
87W–77L career · 1 line in 2025
22%78%<1%
3.10
Rutika Bhapkar
8W–2L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%27%73%
3.08
3
Beth Witte
46W–57L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%66%34%
2.95
Leigh Gronau
74W–97L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%67%33%
2.94
3
Janet JenningsOchs
134W–163L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%81%19%
2.88
Lucy Tims
45W–37L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
TIFFANI CLARK
6W–6L career · 2 lines in 2025
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.