Teams

Baldwin

2026 Roanoke Tri-Level · Roanoke Tri-Level 4.0, 3.5, 3.0 Women

9 players · average NTRP 3.75 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2026-09-02vs Jones - BBTriBWon 21
W#1 DoublesJennifer Baldwin / Jen Stewart vs Lynne Krulich / Magdalena Kanska7-6, 6-3
L#2 DoublesMarie Earnhardt / Cindy Martin vs Hannah Sonnenburg / Rachel Robinson0-6, 1-6
W#3 DoublesLizzy Sullivan / Meghan Wills vs Alice Noble / Lisa Zhang7-5, 7-6
2026-08-26vs Jones - BBTriBLost 03
L#1 DoublesTina Plotka / Hui Wang vs Lynne Krulich / Nora Cross4-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesKathleen Oddo / Cindy Martin vs Wendy Parker / Hannah Sonnenburg2-6, 0-6
L#3 DoublesMeghan Wills / Lizzy Sullivan vs Alice Noble / Lisa Zhang6-4, 3-6, 0-1
2026-08-08vs SzechenyiLost 12
L#1 DoublesTina Plotka / Hui Wang vs Julia Boas / Sanaa Ait Hammou3-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesMarie Earnhardt / Cindy Martin vs Kristin Godsey / Tracy Hawthorne4-6, 3-6
W#3 DoublesLizzy Sullivan / Meghan Wills vs Deborah Garland / Betty Thurman6-3, 7-5
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 · Roanoke Tri-Level 4.0, 3.5, 3.0 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Szechenyi1021226
2Jones - BBTriB000000
3Baldwin0112432

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 3.48 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.

4.07
Jen Stewart
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.68
Tina Plotka
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.64
Hui Wang
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.63
Laura Strawn
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.55
Susan Loveday
published
3.36
Kathleen Oddo
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.18
Meghan Wills
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.13
Cindy Martin
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.09
Marie Earnhardt
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.

Tina Plotka + Hui Wang1447% games−8.7% 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.

Jen Stewart
16W–4L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%30%70%
4.07
Tina Plotka
3W–6L career · 2 lines in 2026
9%91%1%
3.68
4
Hui Wang
5W–12L career · 2 lines in 2026
13%86%<1%
3.64
Laura Strawn
21W–4L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%16%84%
3.63
Susan Loveday
4W–2L career · no lines in 2026
<1%34%66%
3.55
Kathleen Oddo
15W–9L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%86%14%
3.36
Meghan Wills
2W–1L career · 3 lines in 2026
99%1%<1%
3.18
3.5
Cindy Martin
1W–6L career · type S · 3 lines in 2026
15%85%<1%
3.13
Marie Earnhardt
8W–11L career · 2 lines in 2026
25%75%<1%
3.09

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.