Teams

C 7.5W AVB Kerosky

2023 NEOTA Combo Fall · NEOTA 7.5 Combo W Fall

19 players · average NTRP 3.69 / NORTHEASTERN OHIO

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
2023-11-19vs C 7.5W MM TodaroLost 02
L#1 DoublesDina Hopps / Carla Elenz vs Margaret VanDine / Cheryl Chase7-6, 5-7, 1-0
L#2 DoublesSusan Aey / Courtnie Higgins vs Kim Hodgkiss-Lilly / Emily Ziegler4-6, 6-7
2023-11-11vs C 7.5W PW2 CiceroSplit 11
W#1 DoublesBianca Collins / Dina Hopps vs Linda Simonton / Michelle Kuznicki6-3, 7-6
L#2 DoublesMegan Bryan / FERNANDA BALEN vs Angela Cicero / Emily Pallaki6-4, 3-6, 1-0
2023-09-16vs C 7.5W PW1 AtkinsonWon 20
W#1 DoublesLori Digiacomo / Dina Hopps vs Debora Ksenich / Gail Schneider6-7, 6-2, 1-0
W#2 DoublesJoanne Gardner / Joan Kerosky vs Rochelle Sladek / Karen Lanigan6-1, 6-4
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 NEOTA 7.5 Combo W Fall 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 3.42 estimated across 12 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.

3.88
Jane Moose
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published
3.79
Hannah Morrison
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.60
Susan Aey
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #3 Doubles 20% · published
3.54
Camilla Hill
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.50
Kasey Bland
published
3.46
Bianca Collins
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.40
Debra Evan
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.36
Pamela Hudson
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Carla Elenz
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
Courtnie Higgins
usually #1 Doubles 33%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.23
FERNANDA BALEN
usually #2 Doubles 71%, also #3 Doubles 14% · published 3.5
3.22
Dina Hopps
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 13% · published 3.5
3.05
Lori Digiacomo
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
3.01
Joan Kerosky
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
Joanne Gardner
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
Leigh Jaffer
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
Lou Ann Fredericka
published
Megan Bryan
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #1 Doubles 20% · published
Meredythe McNally
usually #1 Doubles 100% · 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.

Jane Moose + Joan Kerosky4163% games+10.3% vs expected
Hannah Morrison + Bianca Collins6552% games+10.0% vs expected
Joan Kerosky + Meredythe McNally6161% games+9.0% vs expected
Pamela Hudson + Debra Evan16560% games+8.5% vs expected
Megan Bryan + Joanne Gardner4164% games+7.0% vs expected
Lori Digiacomo + Joanne Gardner6749% games+4.9% vs expected
Joan Kerosky + FERNANDA BALEN7261% games+4.0% vs expected
Susan Aey + Dina Hopps171055% games+3.2% 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.

Jane Moose
103W–73L career · 5 lines in 2023
<1%81%19%
3.88
4
Hannah Morrison
45W–17L career · 2 lines in 2023
1%93%5%
3.79
Susan Aey
92W–59L career · 5 lines in 2023
23%77%<1%
3.60
4
Camilla Hill
86W–109L career · 3 lines in 2023
36%64%<1%
3.54
Kasey Bland
74W–25L career · no lines in 2023
<1%51%49%
3.50
4
Bianca Collins
51W–70L career · 6 lines in 2023
61%39%<1%
3.46
3.5
Debra Evan
44W–44L career · 6 lines in 2023
<1%79%21%
3.40
Pamela Hudson
48W–60L career · 1 line in 2023
<1%86%14%
3.36
3.5
Carla Elenz
27W–75L career · 4 lines in 2023
not enough data
3.5
Courtnie Higgins
12W–15L career · 3 lines in 2023
not enough data
3.5
FERNANDA BALEN
44W–29L career · 7 lines in 2023
4%94%2%
3.23
3.5
Dina Hopps
153W–106L career · 8 lines in 2023
5%94%2%
3.22
Lori Digiacomo
81W–120L career · 2 lines in 2023
34%66%<1%
3.05
Joan Kerosky
120W–106L career · 4 lines in 2023
48%52%<1%
3.01
Joanne Gardner
36W–21L career · 2 lines in 2023
not enough data
Leigh Jaffer
21W–12L career · 3 lines in 2023
not enough data
Lou Ann Fredericka
49W–24L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Megan Bryan
44W–30L career · 5 lines in 2023
not enough data
Meredythe McNally
50W–26L career · 2 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.