Teams

NITA W 75CWc Hinsdale-Scrogin

2024 NITA2 Winterz Combo 18 & Over · NITA Winter 7.5 Combo Women

18 players · average NTRP 3.89 / NORTHERN ILLINOIS

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 →
Schedule12 played
L#1 DoublesKathleen Merkle / Jill Lauesen vs Anne Esquivel / Elisabeth Sanders2-6, 6-2, 0-1
W#2 DoublesJulie Boruff / Weihua Zeng vs Jessica Urban / Cathy Abbott6-2, 2-6, 1-0
L#3 DoublesAnnette Hennessy / Hope Brown vs Catherine Wasylenko / Eileen Gillstrom7-5, 3-5, 0-1
L#1 DoublesShannon Ebner / Heidi Lopez vs MEREDITH BETTCHER / Ella Lord2-6, 4-6
W#2 DoublesJulie Boruff / Weihua Zeng vs Jane Strien / Lisa Sanderson6-3, 6-2
2024-04-14vs NITA W 75CWb Tam-WrightLost 12
L#1 DoublesKathleen Merkle / Lina Kamenev vs Martha Davis / Marjorie Baltazar2-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesKaterina Hickey / Weihua Zeng vs Huan Chang / Illana Hodges2-6, 2-6
W#3 DoublesKatrin Maldre / Hope Brown vs Rochelle Probst / Christie Jordan6-1, 6-1
W#1 DoublesShannon Ebner / Lina Kamenev vs Tracy Reese / Lori Toney6-2, 6-4
W#2 DoublesWendy Leto / Karie Scrogin vs Melinda Watson / Mary McNamara6-2, 6-0
2024-03-09vs NITA W 75CWa Five Star-DelgrossoWon 21
W#1 DoublesKathleen Merkle / Jill Lauesen vs Dorothy OMalley / Diana McClaurin4-6, 6-3, 1-0
L#2 DoublesJulie Boruff / Weihua Zeng vs Mary Ellen Young / Robin Dickerson1-6, 6-3, 0-1
W#3 DoublesKatrin Maldre / Karie Scrogin vs Cheryl Engle / Michelle Dougherty1-6, 6-3, 1-0
W#1 DoublesJulie Boruff / Weihua Zeng vs Salve Messina / Mary Baker6-0, 6-1
W#2 DoublesKatrin Maldre / Hope Brown vs Cherie Vick / Isabella Herda6-2, 2-6, 1-0
L#1 DoublesJill Lauesen / Wendy Leto vs Jennifer Huffaker / Zagorka James2-6, 4-6
W#2 DoublesLina Kamenev / Kathleen Merkle vs Peggy Schwerman / Catherine Wasylenko6-1, 6-2
W#3 DoublesAnnette Hennessy / Weihua Zeng vs Joy Mullady / Susan Papiernik6-2, 6-2
2024-02-17vs NITA W 75CWb Tam-WrightLost 12
L#1 DoublesKathleen Merkle / Heidi Lopez vs Martha Davis / Rochelle Probst7-6, 1-3, 0-1
L#2 DoublesSupriya Jasuja / Jill Lauesen vs Rebecca Daly / GERELMAA BUDMANDAKH3-6, 4-6
W#3 DoublesHope Geldes / Karie Scrogin vs Jennifer Peck / Nancy Valerio6-1, 7-5
W#1 DoublesKaterina Hickey / Heidi Lopez vs Joanne Sleezer / Angie Ulie6-3, 6-3
W#2 DoublesAnnette Hennessy / Lina Kamenev vs Ella Lord / Stephanie Konen3-6, 6-3, 1-0
W#1 DoublesShannon Ebner / Heidi Lopez vs Vanessa Baker / Lori Toney7-5, 6-4
W#2 DoublesKathleen Merkle / Lina Kamenev vs Michelle Reynolds / Deborah Apicella6-1, 4-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesCeyda Arslan / Weihua Zeng vs Alicia Yaeger / Joan Vander Linde6-3, 5-3
W#1 DoublesWeihua Zeng / Katerina Hickey vs Kristin Lamb / Erica White7-6, 5-3
L#2 DoublesAnnette Hennessy / Karie Scrogin vs Margaret Weiss / Toni Mountcastle6-4, 1-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesJill Lauesen / Cynthia Friess vs Terri Parse / Mary Baker6-2, 2-6, 0-1
2024-01-14vs NITA W 75CWa Five Star-DelgrossoLost 12
L#1 DoublesAnnette Hennessy / Heidi Lopez vs Lesa Moskowitz / Dorothy OMalley6-1, 3-6, 0-1
L#2 DoublesWendy Leto / Lina Kamenev vs Martha Skryd / Diana McClaurin4-6, 6-1, 0-1
W#3 DoublesKathleen Merkle / Hope Brown vs Colleen Doyle / Amy Harper6-4, 3-6, 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 standings7 teams · NITA Winter 7.5 Combo Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1NITA W 75CWb Tam-Wright93251126274
2NITA W 75CWa Five Star-Delgrosso93221436313
3NITA W 75CWc Hinsdale-Scrogin84211537281
4NITA W 75CWg Norris-Prendergast/Sleezer75191739328
5NITA W 75CWe Naperville-Martinez/Odenbeck48142247354
6NITA W 75CWf Naperville-Wilson/Parse39132349350
7NITA W 75CWd Challenge-Kennedy/Mullady210122452353

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 3.61 estimated across 11 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.

3.90
Katrin Maldre
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.80
Shannon Ebner
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.77
Cynthia Friess
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.74
Annette Hennessy
usually #2 Doubles 40%, also #3 Doubles 40% · published 4
3.72
Julie Boruff
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published
3.66
Katerina Hickey
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.65
Wendy Leto
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.52
Lina Kamenev
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.52
Ceyda Arslan
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.32
Weihua Zeng
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.12
Jill Lauesen
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published
Heidi Lopez
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Hope Brown
published
Hope Geldes
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Karie Scrogin
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
Kathleen Merkle
usually #1 Doubles 57%, also #2 Doubles 29% · published
Supriya Jasuja
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Theresa LeBaron
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.

Shannon Ebner + Ceyda Arslan2346% games−0.6% vs expected
Katerina Hickey + Shannon Ebner3350% games−0.8% vs expected
Katerina Hickey + Julie Boruff7457% games−7.1% vs expected
Katrin Maldre + Annette Hennessy3447% games−8.9% vs expected
Karie Scrogin + Annette Hennessy5647% games−15.9% vs expected
Jill Lauesen + Kathleen Merkle2343% gamesnot enough data
Kathleen Merkle + Lina Kamenev3249% gamesnot enough data
Karie Scrogin + Katerina Hickey2353% gamesnot 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.

4
Katrin Maldre
109W–82L career · 3 lines in 2024
<1%76%23%
3.90
4
Shannon Ebner
81W–53L career · 3 lines in 2024
1%90%8%
3.80
4
Cynthia Friess
97W–72L career · 1 line in 2024
3%92%5%
3.77
4
Annette Hennessy
150W–161L career · 5 lines in 2024
5%92%3%
3.74
Julie Boruff
117W–78L career · 4 lines in 2024
6%92%2%
3.72
4
Katerina Hickey
87W–101L career · 3 lines in 2024
13%86%1%
3.66
4
Wendy Leto
109W–80L career · 3 lines in 2024
14%85%1%
3.65
3.5
Lina Kamenev
102W–36L career · 6 lines in 2024
<1%44%56%
3.52
4
Ceyda Arslan
59W–52L career · 3 lines in 2024
44%56%<1%
3.52
3.5
Weihua Zeng
23W–30L career · 8 lines in 2024
1%89%10%
3.32
Jill Lauesen
54W–118L career · 5 lines in 2024
20%80%<1%
3.12
Heidi Lopez
8W–11L career · 5 lines in 2024
not enough data
Hope Brown
0W–1L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
Hope Geldes
11W–9L career · 1 line in 2024
not enough data
Karie Scrogin
41W–45L career · 4 lines in 2024
not enough data
Kathleen Merkle
14W–15L career · 7 lines in 2024
not enough data
Supriya Jasuja
4W–12L career · 1 line in 2024
not enough data
Theresa LeBaron
3W–12L 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.