Teams

CDTA S TriW4.0/4.5/5.0 b.Centennial Siegel Sun 11 $20

CDTA Summer Tri Level · CDTA S Tri Women 4.0

23 players · average NTRP 4.25 / CHICAGO

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 DoublesJean Soh / Haina Shin vs Tomoko Hayashida / Zagorka James6-1, 6-1
L#1 DoublesElizabeth Burns / Alexandra Lichtor vs Marianne Sharping / Tomomi Nagao1-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesKeara Miller / Alexandra Lichtor vs Ashley Martin / Kathleen Preston2-6, 6-4, 0-1
W#1 DoublesJanet Rauschenberger / Jill Siegel vs N/A6-0, 6-0
L#2 DoublesAmy Antoniolli / Jennifer Micon vs Claire Buehler / Kristen Kalinka1-6, 2-6
2023-06-14Won 10
W#3 DoublesRuth Karakosta / Maura Starshak vs Christine Meade / Priscilla Ewaldz7-6, 4-1
L#2 DoublesMichelle Lee / Janet Rauschenberger vs Ashley Martin / Mary Therese Lee2-6, 4-6
L#1 DoublesJean Soh / Jennifer Peck vs Zagorka James / Yumi Ida6-0, 4-6, 0-1
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 · CDTA S Tri Women 4.0
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1CDTA S TriW4.0/4.5/5.0 a.River Trails Wright Sun 12 $22802317107
2CDTA S TriW4.0/4.5/5.0 b.Centennial Siegel Sun 11 $202691531196
3CDTA S TriW4.0/4.5/5.0 c.Lake Bluff Pacaut Wed 6:30 $202642040247

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 3.93 estimated across 18 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.

4.28
Keara Miller
published
Brooklyn Siegel
published 4.5
4.23
Laura Levin
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published
4.21
Ruth Karakosta
published
4.20
Janet Rauschenberger
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 4.5
4.18
J'Ana Diamond
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
4.18
Michelle Lee
published
4.14
Heike Spahn
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
4.09
Alexandra Lichtor
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 4.5
4.08
Jill Siegel
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.90
Amanda Ellsworth
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 4.5
3.87
Nonie Carson
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.82
Jean Soh
usually #3 Doubles 60%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published 4
Elizabeth Burns
published 4
3.69
Laura Purcell
published
3.63
Maura Starshak
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.61
Stephanie Thompson
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.57
Jennifer Nemec
published
3.56
Amy Antoniolli
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.51
Rebecca Daly
published
Jendy Barnes
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
Jennifer Micon
published
Susan Byrne
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.

Nonie Carson + Keara Miller172246% games+5.0% vs expected
J'Ana Diamond + Keara Miller392555% games+3.2% vs expected
Amanda Ellsworth + Heike Spahn6457% games+2.1% vs expected
Laura Levin + Keara Miller6256% games+0.8% vs expected
Heike Spahn + Elizabeth Burns3750% games−0.8% vs expected
Jean Soh + Michelle Lee4447% games−1.3% vs expected
Heike Spahn + Janet Rauschenberger5452% games−2.1% vs expected
Laura Levin + Nonie Carson1449% games−4.5% 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.

Keara Miller
143W–119L career · no lines in 2023
2%94%4%
4.28
4.5
Brooklyn Siegel
11W–4L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Laura Levin
62W–39L career · 5 lines in 2023
4%94%2%
4.23
Ruth Karakosta
80W–34L career · no lines in 2023
5%94%1%
4.21
4.5
Janet Rauschenberger
48W–39L career · 2 lines in 2023
6%93%1%
4.20
4.5
J'Ana Diamond
103W–83L career · 4 lines in 2023
8%91%1%
4.18
Michelle Lee
167W–74L career · no lines in 2023
9%91%1%
4.18
4.5
Heike Spahn
168W–151L career · 4 lines in 2023
14%86%<1%
4.14
4.5
Alexandra Lichtor
102W–104L career · 2 lines in 2023
25%75%<1%
4.09
Jill Siegel
84W–79L career · 1 line in 2023
27%73%<1%
4.08
4.5
Amanda Ellsworth
47W–69L career · 2 lines in 2023
77%23%<1%
3.90
4
Nonie Carson
46W–101L career · 6 lines in 2023
<1%85%15%
3.87
4
Jean Soh
468W–283L career · 5 lines in 2023
1%91%8%
3.82
4
Elizabeth Burns
34W–41L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Laura Purcell
158W–161L career · no lines in 2023
8%92%1%
3.69
4
Maura Starshak
88W–46L career · 1 line in 2023
15%84%<1%
3.63
4
Stephanie Thompson
146W–154L career · 2 lines in 2023
20%80%<1%
3.61
Jennifer Nemec
62W–168L career · no lines in 2023
30%70%<1%
3.57
4
Amy Antoniolli
33W–44L career · 1 line in 2023
33%67%<1%
3.56
Rebecca Daly
129W–147L career · no lines in 2023
48%52%<1%
3.51
Jendy Barnes
41W–45L career · 3 lines in 2023
not enough data
Jennifer Micon
3W–22L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Susan Byrne
5W–10L career · no 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.