CIN X18 9.0 IHP Hullett
Winter USTA Central Indiana Mixed 18 & Over · CIN Indy Mixed 18 & Over 9.0, W
17 players · average NTRP 4.38 / CENTRAL INDIANA
No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.
Schedule10 played
i
Flight standings6 teams · CIN Indy Mixed 18 & Over 9.0, W
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1CIN/Cooper/X18&Over9.0 | 10 | 0 | 15 | 232 |
| 2CIN X18 9.0 IHP Hullett | 6 | 4 | 23 | 218 |
| 3CIN X18 9.0 IRCD Denton | 6 | 4 | 33 | 276 |
| 4CIN X18 9.0 IHP Hawkins | 4 | 6 | 36 | 280 |
| 5CIN X18 9.0 JCC Lennen | 2 | 8 | 43 | 301 |
| 6CIN X18 9.0 CRC Weitzer | 2 | 8 | 47 | 327 |
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 4.02 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.
Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.
| Margot Burke + Trevor Cox | 15–7 | 56% games | +18.5% vs expected |
| Andrew Airgood + Shelby Hullett | 14–6 | 65% games | +15.2% vs expected |
| Gabrielle Rubenstein + Jason Hays | 8–1 | 65% games | +9.7% vs expected |
| Shelby Hullett + Jason Hays | 9–4 | 64% games | +5.1% vs expected |
| Brad Mustin + Gabrielle Rubenstein | 21–5 | 57% games | not enough data |
| Tyler Hornback + Shelby Hullett | 17–6 | 56% games | not enough data |
| Shelby Hullett + Michael Heinekamp | 9–6 | 52% games | not enough data |
| Tara Schetzel + Tyler Hornback | 5–5 | 49% games | not enough data |
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.