6SCWB-BARTHOLOMEW 65WOMEN SEM F5
2024 SEM FALL COMBO DOUBLES · WOMEN 65 COMBO SEM
24 players · average NTRP 3.42 / S.E. MICHIGAN
No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.
Schedule8 played
i
Flight standings26 teams · WOMEN 65 COMBO SEM
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11LIB-MARLEY 65WOMEN SEM F1 | 8 | 1 | 12 | 169 |
| 23HV-KING 65WOMEN SEM F2 | 8 | 1 | 14 | 178 |
| 33EAST-SZABO 65WOMEN SEM F3 | 8 | 1 | 18 | 195 |
| 42TROY-LI 65WOMEN SEM F5 | 7 | 1 | 6 | 124 |
| 54PEACH-PARROTT 65WOMEN SEM F4 | 7 | 1 | 20 | 211 |
| 66SCWB-BARTHOLOMEW 65WOMEN SEM F5 | 7 | 1 | 20 | 161 |
| 71TROY-VONDELL 65WOMEN SEM F4 | 6 | 2 | 22 | 196 |
| 81WESS-STRASSER 65WOMEN SEM F6 | 6 | 3 | 20 | 190 |
| 94HV-CUTLER 65WOMEN SEM F1 | 6 | 3 | 26 | 223 |
| 101TROY-SEGERLIND 65WOMEN SEM F3 | 6 | 3 | 28 | 238 |
| 114SCWB-CHEN 65WOMEN SEM F6 | 6 | 3 | 28 | 218 |
| 122FAC-MEYERS 65WOMEN SEM F6 | 5 | 4 | 25 | 224 |
| 132LIB-DOBSON 65WOMEN SEM F2 | 5 | 4 | 29 | 238 |
| 141TRAV-SKOCHELAK 65WOMEN SEM F2 | 5 | 4 | 31 | 240 |
| 152BRC-NOVOTNY 65WOMEN SEM F4 | 3 | 5 | 28 | 204 |
| 165FAC-SMITH 65WOMEN SEM F4 | 3 | 5 | 31 | 218 |
| 171WESS-BROWN 65WOMEN SEM F5 | 3 | 5 | 32 | 223 |
| 182VTC-JOHNSTON 65WOMEN SEM F1 | 3 | 6 | 38 | 270 |
| 192LIFE-MARVEL-NELSON 65WOMEN SEM F3 | 3 | 6 | 40 | 263 |
| 203BEV-MOORE 65WOMEN SEM F5 | 2 | 6 | 36 | 258 |
| 213LIFE-ANDERSON 65WOMEN SEM F4 | 1 | 7 | 39 | 257 |
| 224FAC-JOHNSON 65WOMEN SEM F5 | 1 | 7 | 41 | 258 |
| 234PEACH-HARTEL 65WOMEN SEM F3 | 1 | 8 | 40 | 279 |
| 243HV-BELCHER 65WOMEN SEM F1 | 1 | 8 | 45 | 293 |
| 253BEV-BRUECKMAN 65WOMEN SEM F6 | 1 | 8 | 49 | 301 |
| 264DEAR-LOWLER 65 WOMEN SEM F2 | 0 | 9 | 51 | 309 |
Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.
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 3.16 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.
Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.
| Akina Hirose + MEGUMI MORII | 6–0 | 79% games | +9.1% vs expected |
| Yumiko Farrell + Aiko Lapinski | 5–1 | 65% games | +6.0% vs expected |
| Yumiko Farrell + Miki Yaguchi | 3–2 | 55% games | +5.0% vs expected |
| Michelle Verplanck + Caroline Lesnau | 3–5 | 49% games | +3.8% vs expected |
| Yasuko Tagawa + Konomi Aino | 5–5 | 60% games | +3.3% vs expected |
| Audra Bartholomew + Yumiko Farrell | 7–7 | 51% games | −0.2% vs expected |
| Miki Yaguchi + Akiko Uno | 3–2 | 51% games | −2.4% vs expected |
| Yumiko Farrell + Nina Nakamura | 5–3 | 52% games | −12.8% vs expected |
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.
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.