Teams

CDTA W 40&OW3.5 10.River Trails Greenberg Sat 4 $25

CDTA 2Winter 40 & Over W · E

23 players · average NTRP 3.65 / 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 →
Schedule6 played
L#1 DoublesJill Buckley / Jane Ford vs Janet Hanks / Tracy Stronsky2-6, 6-2, 0-1
L#1 SinglesHannah Alphs Jackson vs Michelle Ramker3-6, 6-4, 0-1
L#1 DoublesJane Ford / Jill Buckley vs Sue Christianson / Amy Silverman4-6, 6-4, 0-1
L#2 DoublesIrene Carod / Stephanie Remelius vs Deborah Berlin / Carol Zorn5-7, 4-3, 1-0
2024-03-10Lost 02
L#1 DoublesJill Buckley / Linh Bailey vs Janine Sheridan / Jacqueline Henderson2-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesMeg Greenberg / Apple Naughton vs Katie Burnside / Kelly Golden1-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesLaura Cherry / Anne Gallagher vs Amy Barich / Lori Bieniek2-6, 3-6
L#1 SinglesNicole Putzel vs Tina Werber5-7, 1-6
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 standings10 teams · E
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1CDTA W 40&OW3.5 4.Nielsen Lund Sun 4 $229029718215
2CDTA W 40&OW3.5 10.River Trails Greenberg Sat 4 $2572251126250
3CDTA W 40&OW3.5 1.MT Bann Greeley Sat 4 $2572231330259
4CDTA W 40&OW3.5 3.Tam Lund Sat 1 $2263241231290
5CDTA W 40&OW3.5 5.Tam Kanev Sun 3 $2245191742327
6CDTA W 40&OW3.5 9.River Trails Hanrahan Sat 5 $2545132346347
7CDTA W 40&OW3.5 8.River Trails Cox Sun 6:$2536152147352
8CDTA W 40&OW3.5 7.Heritage Morrison Sat 12 $2336152149348
9CDTA W 40&OW3.5 2.Barrington Burns Sat 9 $202782860380
10CDTA W 40&OW3.5 6.Northbrook Zorn Sun 6 $260992757361

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 3.33 estimated across 16 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.

3.79
Liza Spinazze
usually #3 Doubles 57%, also #1 Doubles 29% · published
3.78
Urszula Farry
published 4
3.56
Linh Bailey
published 4
3.50
Lyndsay Cavanagh
published 3.5
3.46
3.42
Apple Naughton
published 3.5
3.41
Jane Ford
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.34
Lucie Kreidler
published 3.5
3.27
SoYoung Grote
published 3.5
Anne Gallagher
published 3.5
3.23
Jessica Vahey
published
3.20
Laura Cherry
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.17
Jill Buckley
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.14
Beatrisa Paz
published 3.5
3.13
Anna Swanson
published 3.5
2.98
Nicole Putzel
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
2.84
Michelle Pilipauskas
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
Hannah Alphs Jackson
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
Irene Carod
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Jennifer Humphrey
published
Kathy Clark
published
Meg Greenberg
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Rachel Wanroy
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.

Laura Cherry + Lyndsay Cavanagh3257% games+12.0% vs expected
Linh Bailey + Apple Naughton9655% games+8.9% vs expected
Jill Buckley + Jane Ford121151% games+6.3% vs expected
Lucie Kreidler + SoYoung Grote13756% games+4.6% vs expected
Irene Carod + Beatrisa Paz6443% games+2.7% vs expected
Michelle Pilipauskas + Beatrisa Paz4646% games+2.3% vs expected
Apple Naughton + Urszula Farry8652% games+0.8% vs expected
Urszula Farry + Meg Greenberg1644% games−1.0% 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.

Liza Spinazze
149W–96L career · 7 lines in 2024
<1%2%98%
3.79
4
Urszula Farry
85W–43L career · no lines in 2024
2%92%6%
3.78
4
Linh Bailey
56W–52L career · no lines in 2024
35%65%<1%
3.56
3.5
Lyndsay Cavanagh
124W–65L career · no lines in 2024
<1%51%49%
3.50
4
Stephanie Remelius
75W–73L career · no lines in 2024
60%40%<1%
3.46
3.5
Apple Naughton
225W–194L career · no lines in 2024
<1%71%28%
3.42
Jane Ford
76W–39L career · 2 lines in 2024
<1%<1%>99%
3.41
3.5
Lucie Kreidler
165W–131L career · no lines in 2024
1%87%12%
3.34
3.5
SoYoung Grote
111W–94L career · no lines in 2024
3%92%5%
3.27
3.5
Anne Gallagher
40W–16L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
Jessica Vahey
41W–25L career · no lines in 2024
5%92%3%
3.23
Laura Cherry
56W–41L career · 1 line in 2024
7%91%2%
3.20
Jill Buckley
94W–94L career · 3 lines in 2024
<1%11%89%
3.17
3.5
Beatrisa Paz
170W–134L career · no lines in 2024
16%83%<1%
3.14
3.5
Anna Swanson
76W–61L career · no lines in 2024
18%81%<1%
3.13
Nicole Putzel
15W–24L career · 1 line in 2024
54%46%<1%
2.98
Michelle Pilipauskas
40W–42L career · 3 lines in 2024
1%86%13%
2.84
Hannah Alphs Jackson
44W–28L career · 1 line in 2024
not enough data
Irene Carod
44W–47L career · 1 line in 2024
not enough data
Jennifer Humphrey
2W–3L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
Kathy Clark
9W–2L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
Meg Greenberg
30W–84L career · 1 line in 2024
not enough data
Rachel Wanroy
3W–2L career · no lines in 2024
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.