Teams

MPTC - Slice Girls

2025 HTA Spring NA - Ladies Singles Wednesday · Open HTA Ladies Singles

10 players · average NTRP 4.50 / 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 →
Schedule3 played
2025-04-02vs MPTC - Baseline BabesWon 30
W#1 SinglesAbby Dennett vs Consuelo Meza6-1, 6-4
W#2 SinglesLinnie Ford vs Gaby Schwob6-1, 6-0
W#3 SinglesMaria Gabriela Graterol Stefanelli vs Phoenix Kageler6-0, 6-0
2025-02-26vs MPTC - Baseline BabesWon 20
W#1 SinglesAmanda Joy vs Gaby Schwob6-0, 6-1
W#2 SinglesLinnie Ford vs Phoenix Kageler6-0, 6-0
2025-02-05vs MPTC - Baseline BabesWon 30
W#1 SinglesAmanda Joy vs Michelle Griffith2-6, 6-3, 1-0
W#2 SinglesSarah Altus vs Consuelo Meza6-3, 4-6, 1-0
W#3 SinglesJillian Ermis vs Phoenix Kageler6-2, 6-3
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 standings for Open HTA Ladies Singles have not been collected yet. Where we have them we show every team in the flight ranked, with this team highlighted. The crawler is still filling in older seasons and flights.

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 4.01 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.

4.67
Neha Shaw
published
4.27
Abby Dennett
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 5
4.11
Linnie Ford
usually #2 Singles 100% · published
4.05
Cecilia Tetlow
published 4.5
3.91
Amanda Joy
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 4.5
3.88
Maria Gabriela Graterol Stefanelli
usually #3 Singles 100% · published
3.80
Jillian Ermis
usually #3 Singles 100% · published
3.79
Sarah Altus
usually #2 Singles 100% · published
3.65
Lesley Ngwe Neh
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.

Abby Dennett + Cecilia Tetlow3457% games+25.8% vs expected
Cecilia Tetlow + Amanda Joy5555% games+12.5% vs expected
Neha Shaw + Abby Dennett17362% games+10.1% vs expected
Abby Dennett + Maria Gabriela Graterol Stefanelli4253% games+9.7% vs expected
Neha Shaw + Maria Gabriela Graterol Stefanelli4154% games−0.4% vs expected
Cecilia Tetlow + Maria Gabriela Graterol Stefanelli123 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.

Neha Shaw
36W–15L career · no lines in 2025
no projection at this level
4.67
5
Abby Dennett
40W–24L career · 1 line in 2025
no projection at this level
4.27
Linnie Ford
65W–55L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%22%78%
4.11
4.5
Cecilia Tetlow
28W–29L career · no lines in 2025
35%65%<1%
4.05
4.5
Amanda Joy
21W–22L career · 2 lines in 2025
75%25%<1%
3.91
Maria Gabriela Graterol Stefanelli
44W–27L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%<1%>99%
3.88
Jillian Ermis
53W–19L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%2%98%
3.80
Sarah Altus
26W–19L career · 1 line in 2025
93%7%<1%
3.79
4
Alexandra Yudelevich
2W–2L career · type S · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Lesley Ngwe Neh
56W–44L career · no lines in 2025
<1%<1%>99%
3.65

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.