Teams

Lakes @ Castle Hills/Lewis-Boronski W3.5 (F2025 WC)

2025 DALLAS TENNIS 18 & Over ADULT S · S W. Thursday League

16 players · average NTRP 3.50 / TEXAS

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 →
Schedule2 played
2025-06-19vs DCC/Slaven W3.5Lost 02
L#2 DoublesMendy Hatley / Stacy Whitlow vs Danielle Reynolds / Jessica Slaven1-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesPam Boronski / Leann Tran vs Jordan Pounds / Adelaide Skinner6-7, 2-6
2025-05-08Lost 01
L#1 DoublesPatti Kaiser / Leann Tran vs Stephanie Shah / Joy Sebold4-6, 7-6, 1-0
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 standings29 teams · S W. Thursday League
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Chandlers Landing/Oelke-Lee W3.58035517234
2DCC/Slaven W3.580301024237
3Northwood/Pask W3.57133720248
4The Nelson/Stoll-Wood W3.571301030319
5Lakes @ Castle Hills/Lewis-Boronski W3.5 (F2025 WC)71261436322
6Samuell Grand/Nicholson-Carpenter W3.571251542371
7DAC/Starnes-Willson W3.562291126279
8Lakes/Akbany-Little W3.562251533302
9RGAC/Lucas W3.553231739322
10McKinney/Hedblom W3.553251540334
11Lakes/Leeper-Bingham W3.553241641369
12Brook Hollow/Stephenson W3.544211943359
13El Dorado/Miller W3.544202044348
14Fretz/Buechel W3.544182249380
15Stonebridge/Giacchino-Cantu W3.544202050391
16Garland/Howarth-Grandle W3.535192146348
17High Point/Tucker-Wise-Itscovitch W3.535202048350
18High Point/Escutia W3.535182249370
19Bent Tree/Sarché-Wilder W3.535152552400
20Gleneagles/Steyn-Priebe W3.535162453400
21T bar M/Mizerany-Benson W3.535142657403
22DAC/Frazure-Shepardson W3.535122860409
23Royal Oaks/Copley W.526202043366
24Las Colinas/Demarque W3.526152553388
25McKinney/Griffiths-Sullivan W3.526132759407
26SpringPark/Eubank-Middlebrook W3.517103065420
27Brookhaven/Frenkel-Smercina W3.508112961411
28Canyon Creek/Cotter-Allen W3.508112962436
29Lakewood/Cholerton-Tucker W3.50873368439

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 3.32 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.

3.87
Kelsey Thornton
usually #1 Singles 56%, also #2 Doubles 22% · published
3.65
Holly Merritt
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.41
Jana Ricker
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.35
Dana Maksimovich
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.33
Betty Preston
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.32
Tara Hooper
usually #3 Doubles 29%, also #1 Singles 29% · published
3.31
Stacy Whitlow
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.29
Patti Kaiser
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
3.27
Julia Cisneros
usually #2 Singles 40%, also #1 Singles 40% · published
3.25
Pam Boronski
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
Denise Grider
published 3.5
3.22
Leann Tran
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.19
Mendy Hatley
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.17
Lisken Kastalanych
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Singles 33% · published
3.14
Christina Norrie
usually #1 Singles 63%, also #2 Singles 25% · published 3.5
3.10
Angela McCarthy
usually #1 Doubles 80%, also #1 Singles 20% · published 3.5
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.

Tara Hooper + Julia Cisneros8261% games+5.7% vs expected
Patti Kaiser + Mendy Hatley4350% games−10.0% vs expected
Pam Boronski + Holly Merritt4165% gamesnot enough data
Stacy Whitlow + Mendy Hatley213 matchesnot enough data
Patti Kaiser + Jana Ricker213 matchesnot enough data
Patti Kaiser + Lisken Kastalanych213 matchesnot enough data
Mendy Hatley + Tara Hooper123 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.

Kelsey Thornton
29W–1L career · 9 lines in 2025
<1%84%16%
3.87
3.5
Holly Merritt
17W–7L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%12%88%
3.65
Jana Ricker
10W–13L career · 4 lines in 2025
75%25%<1%
3.41
3.5
Dana Maksimovich
14W–7L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%88%12%
3.35
3.5
Betty Preston
12W–10L career · 4 lines in 2025
1%90%9%
3.33
Tara Hooper
30W–23L career · 6 lines in 2025
1%91%8%
3.32
Stacy Whitlow
6W–4L career · 1 line in 2025
1%91%8%
3.31
Patti Kaiser
20W–12L career · 4 lines in 2025
1%93%5%
3.29
Julia Cisneros
17W–10L career · 5 lines in 2025
2%94%4%
3.27
Pam Boronski
23W–10L career · 4 lines in 2025
3%95%3%
3.25
3.5
Denise Grider
1W–5L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Leann Tran
8W–10L career · 2 lines in 2025
4%94%2%
3.22
Mendy Hatley
12W–12L career · 2 lines in 2025
8%92%1%
3.19
Lisken Kastalanych
9W–13L career · 3 lines in 2025
10%90%1%
3.17
3.5
Christina Norrie
19W–14L career · 8 lines in 2025
14%86%<1%
3.14
3.5
Angela McCarthy
21W–14L career · 5 lines in 2025
22%78%<1%
3.10

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.