Teams

Team Ammond/Newhouse

2023 NMI Adult 40&O · 2023 NMI Adult 40&O 3.5W

13 players · average NTRP 3.50 / NORTHERN MICHIGAN

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 →
Schedule4 played
2023-01-29vs Team TesarzSplit 22
W#1 DoublesMary Lee Bretz / Shelley Boisvert vs Darlene Germaine / Barbara Newton-Tesarz2-6, 6-4, 1-0
L#1 SinglesElizabeth Ammond vs Jessica Colton2-6, 6-2, 0-1
L#2 DoublesBabe Toteff / Susan Vermetten vs Rebecca Schubert / Amy Boros3-6, 5-7
W#3 DoublesKelly Isenhart / JoAnn O'Connor vs Mary Adams / Karen Rudolph6-3, 6-3
2023-01-29vs Team HaanLost 13
L#1 DoublesElizabeth Ammond / Renee Kaufman vs Elizabeth Thomas / Jennifer Buck0-6, 4-6
W#1 SinglesEve Elden vs Nance Watts6-1, 7-5
L#2 DoublesMary Lee Bretz / Susan Vermetten vs Kim Scholl / Missy Fitzgerald6-3, 2-6, 1-0
L#3 DoublesJulie Hay / Theresa Stack vs Dianne Litzenburger / Lynne Tollas2-6, 0-6
2023-01-28vs Team HaanLost 13
L#1 DoublesLucia Elden / Eve Elden vs Kim Scholl / Elizabeth Thomas5-7, 2-6
L#1 SinglesJulie Hay vs Jennifer Buck0-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesRenee Kaufman / Babe Toteff vs Mary Yff-Miller / Missy Fitzgerald3-6, 2-6
W#3 DoublesJoAnn O'Connor / Theresa Stack vs Brooke Jacoby / Lynne Tollas1-6, 6-3, 1-0
2023-01-27vs Team TesarzSplit 22
L#1 DoublesMary Lee Bretz / Elizabeth Ammond vs Julie Beeker / Barbara Newton-Tesarz2-6, 2-6
L#1 SinglesBabe Toteff vs Stella Chivikas0-6, 2-6
W#2 DoublesLucia Elden / Eve Elden vs Mary Adams / Karen Rudolph7-6, 6-3
W#3 DoublesShelley Boisvert / Kelly Isenhart vs Darlene Germaine / Julie Povolo6-4, 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 standings3 teams · 2023 NMI Adult 40&O 3.5W
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Team Haan3111920173
2Team Tesarz3171327197
3Team Ammond/Newhouse0461430210

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 3.27 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.

3.44
Eve Elden
usually #1 Singles 33%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.42
Renee Kaufman
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
3.38
Elizabeth Ammond
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #1 Singles 33% · published 3.5
3.38
Mary Lee Bretz
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.29
JoAnn O'Connor
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.24
Shelley Boisvert
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
3.17
Lucia Elden
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
3.08
Babe Toteff
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Singles 33% · published 3.5
3.07
Kelly Isenhart
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Julie Hay
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 50% · published
Lisa Newhouse
published
Susan Vermetten
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Theresa Stack
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.

Lucia Elden + Eve Elden6550% games+5.6% vs expected
Renee Kaufman + JoAnn O'Connor7162% gamesnot enough data
Babe Toteff + Susan Vermetten4354% gamesnot enough data
Elizabeth Ammond + Mary Lee Bretz2340% gamesnot enough data
Babe Toteff + Mary Lee Bretz3256% gamesnot enough data
Renee Kaufman + Susan Vermetten224 matchesnot enough data
Lisa Newhouse + Mary Lee Bretz123 matchesnot enough data
Renee Kaufman + Eve Elden123 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.

3.5
Eve Elden
43W–35L career · 3 lines in 2023
<1%68%32%
3.44
Renee Kaufman
30W–14L career · 2 lines in 2023
<1%74%26%
3.42
3.5
Elizabeth Ammond
21W–26L career · 3 lines in 2023
<1%82%18%
3.38
Mary Lee Bretz
40W–30L career · 3 lines in 2023
<1%82%18%
3.38
3.5
JoAnn O'Connor
29W–22L career · 2 lines in 2023
1%93%5%
3.29
Shelley Boisvert
16W–20L career · 2 lines in 2023
3%94%2%
3.24
Lucia Elden
11W–16L career · 2 lines in 2023
9%90%1%
3.17
3.5
Babe Toteff
24W–27L career · 3 lines in 2023
28%72%<1%
3.08
Kelly Isenhart
2W–3L career · 2 lines in 2023
30%70%<1%
3.07
Julie Hay
0W–6L career · 2 lines in 2023
not enough data
Lisa Newhouse
16W–15L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Susan Vermetten
19W–11L career · 2 lines in 2023
not enough data
Theresa Stack
21W–26L 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.