Teams

CIN Indianapolis, Combo 5.5 W, Meyer (CRC)

Spring USTA Central Indiana Combo Adult · CIN Indy Adult Combo 5.5 Women, S

12 players · average NTRP 3.00 / CENTRAL INDIANA

No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.

View scouting list →
Schedule7 played
W#1 DoublesAllison Meyer / Jill Maynard vs Kellina Avnet / Lisa Kempsell6-3, 6-2
L#2 DoublesSusan Wojcicki / Maggie Flowers vs Veronica Mercke / Kelly Owens3-6, 3-6
L#1 DoublesAllison Meyer / Jill Maynard vs Stacie Courtney / Brandee Bryant4-6, 6-4, 0-1
W#2 DoublesClaudia Manzur / Maggie Flowers vs Nancy Kruse / Yekaterina Dubas6-2, 6-1
L#1 DoublesSusan Wojcicki / Anna Ristow vs Parisa Mansoori / Annette Moore5-7, 4-6
W#2 DoublesClaudia Manzur / Maggie Flowers vs Kimberly Jacobs / Cole Healy7-5, 6-7, 1-0
L#3 DoublesJill Maynard / Viviane Williams vs Katherine Boehm / Laura Critchlow5-7, 4-6
L#1 DoublesSusan Wojcicki / Maggie Flowers vs Carla Crouse / Andrea Hoffman2-6, 3-6
W#2 DoublesKelleen Kennedy / Anna Ristow vs Jennifer White / M Shannon Heider6-0, 6-4
L#3 DoublesViviane Williams / Joan Lawrence vs Kate Sullivan / Cindy Senseman6-7, 6-7
L#1 DoublesAnna Ristow / Kelleen Kennedy vs Evelyn Trausch / Amanda Roberts2-6, 4-6
L#2 DoublesViviane Williams / Maggie Flowers vs Hannah Fogle / Katharine Funke2-6, 3-6
W#3 DoublesAllison Meyer / Brooke Rundle vs Rebeca House / Molly Carnes6-3, 6-4
L#1 DoublesAnna Ristow / Susan Wojcicki vs Alicia Allgood / Anna Ransberger3-6, 3-6
W#2 DoublesJillian Lawrence / Jill Maynard vs Elizabeth Todd / Gayle Jones6-2, 6-1
L#3 DoublesClaudia Manzur / Brooke Rundle vs Ann Brown / Peggy Linard2-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesJillian Lawrence / Jill Maynard vs Blaire Dosmann / Erin Wessels6-3, 2-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesAllison Meyer / Anna Ristow vs Rachele Fraker / Sara Thomas6-1, 6-2
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 standings8 teams · CIN Indy Adult Combo 5.5 Women, S
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1CIN Indianapolis, Combo 5.5 W, Trotter (IRC-D)6115616165
2CIN Indianapolis, Combo 5.5 W, Senseman (IRC-D)6114716177
3CIN Indianapolis, Combo 5.5 W, Fritz (JCC)4312922170
4CIN Indianapolis, Combo 5.5 W, Carnes (INDP)43101125195
5CIN Indianapolis, Combo 5.5 W, Moore (IRC-D)3491226219
6CIN Indianapolis, Combo 5.5 W, Bourquin (IHP)3471429207
7CIN Indianapolis, Combo 5.5 W, Meyer (CRC)1681327193
8CIN Indianapolis, Combo 5.5 W, Whitener (CRC)1681330213

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 2.83 estimated across 9 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.

3.55
Lora Meyer
published
3.55
Allison Meyer
usually #3 Doubles 43%, also #2 Doubles 29% · published 3.5
2.97
Anna Ristow
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #3 Doubles 20% · published 3
2.92
Susan Wojcicki
usually #1 Doubles 57%, also #2 Doubles 43% · published
2.65
Kelleen Kennedy
usually #2 Doubles 40%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published
2.64
Claudia Manzur
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.59
Viviane Williams
usually #3 Doubles 63%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
2.54
Maggie Flowers
usually #2 Doubles 80%, also #1 Doubles 20% · published
Brooke Rundle
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
2.09
Joan Lawrence
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Jill Maynard
usually #2 Doubles 40%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published
Jillian Lawrence
usually #2 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.

Kelleen Kennedy + Anna Ristow10463% games+13.7% vs expected
Allison Meyer + Jillian Lawrence6652% games+13.3% vs expected
Allison Meyer + Anna Ristow11068% games+12.0% vs expected
Allison Meyer + Susan Wojcicki7852% games+11.6% vs expected
Susan Wojcicki + Anna Ristow3548% games+1.7% vs expected
Joan Lawrence + Brooke Rundle3839% games−19.7% vs expected
Allison Meyer + Brooke Rundle5062% gamesnot enough data
Susan Wojcicki + Maggie Flowers3251% gamesnot 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.

Lora Meyer
19W–24L career · no lines in 2024
35%65%<1%
3.55
3.5
Allison Meyer
101W–42L career · 7 lines in 2024
<1%36%64%
3.55
3
Anna Ristow
79W–71L career · 5 lines in 2024
<1%59%41%
2.97
Susan Wojcicki
52W–73L career · 7 lines in 2024
<1%72%28%
2.92
Kelleen Kennedy
36W–100L career · 5 lines in 2024
12%88%<1%
2.65
3
Claudia Manzur
26W–48L career · 3 lines in 2024
15%85%<1%
2.64
Viviane Williams
25W–30L career · 8 lines in 2024
0%24%76%
2.59
Maggie Flowers
27W–21L career · 5 lines in 2024
37%63%<1%
2.54
2.5
Brooke Rundle
11W–21L career · 2 lines in 2024
not enough data
Joan Lawrence
14W–39L career · 1 line in 2024
0%>99%<1%
2.09
Jill Maynard
10W–16L career · 5 lines in 2024
not enough data
Jillian Lawrence
9W–11L 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.