2HV-COOPER 40NW 40&O AD THURS SEM F2
2022 SEM ADULT 40 & OVER NIGHT WOMEN · 4.0 WOMEN THUR PM SEM
17 players · average NTRP 3.65 / 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.
Schedule9 played
i
Flight standings19 teams · 4.0 WOMEN THUR PM SEM
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13CHIP-DELANGE 40NW 40&O AD THURS SEM F2 | 9 | 0 | 29 | 316 |
| 23LIFE-SCHEFF 40NW 40&O AD THURS SEM F3 | 9 | 1 | 35 | 338 |
| 36WESS-KAZANJIAN 40NW 40&O AD THURS SEM F4 | 8 | 0 | 20 | 255 |
| 46BT-BARLOW 40NW 40&O AD THURS SEM F3 | 7 | 3 | 45 | 403 |
| 51LIB-SAULD 40NW 40&O AD THURS SEM F2 | 6 | 3 | 35 | 349 |
| 61BRC-RAAB 40NW 40&O AD THURS SEM F1 | 6 | 3 | 37 | 323 |
| 74TROY-LIVINGSTON 40NW 40&O AD THURS SEM F1 | 6 | 3 | 41 | 357 |
| 82DET-STEINER 40NW 40&O AD THURS SEM F1 | 6 | 3 | 52 | 407 |
| 91FAC-HORCOFF 40NW 40&O AD THURS SEM F4 | 5 | 3 | 41 | 335 |
| 105SCWB-PAWL 40NW 40&O AD THURS SEM F3 | 5 | 5 | 55 | 426 |
| 114PEACH-MAHER 40NW 40&O AD THURS SEM F3 | 4 | 6 | 58 | 442 |
| 123BT-BROWN 40NW 40&O AD THURS SEM F4 | 3 | 5 | 51 | 394 |
| 134DEER-THOMPSON 40NW 40&O AD THURS SEM F4 | 3 | 5 | 53 | 388 |
| 141EAST-NAUMENKO 40NW 40&O AD THURS SEM F3 | 3 | 7 | 75 | 518 |
| 154TRAVIS-SONG 40NW 40&O AD THURS SEM F2 | 2 | 7 | 67 | 455 |
| 162WESS-DIMSDALE 40NW 40&O AD THURS SEM F3 | 2 | 8 | 73 | 502 |
| 172NAC-PALENTINO 40NW 40&O AD THURS SEM F4 | 1 | 7 | 67 | 429 |
| 182HV-COOPER 40NW 40&O AD THURS SEM F2 | 1 | 8 | 73 | 487 |
| 193TROY-DUBAY 40NW 40&O AD THURS SEM F1 | 0 | 9 | 77 | 498 |
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 3.39 estimated across 13 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.
| Jean Wang + Deana Shields | 4–4 | 50% games | +5.8% vs expected |
| Dana Gramprie + Lori Reece | 3–4 | 49% games | +5.2% vs expected |
| Kendra Theriot + Jean Wang | 4–4 | 53% games | +1.7% vs expected |
| Raquel Clasby + Heather Cooper | 4–7 | 44% games | +0.2% vs expected |
| Raquel Clasby + Christine Lammers | 2–4 | 44% games | −0.0% vs expected |
| Julie Ewy + Heather Cooper | 26–24 | 50% games | −0.3% vs expected |
| Raquel Clasby + Jean Wang | 2–3 | 48% games | −0.9% vs expected |
| Deana Shields + Dana Gramprie | 3–4 | 51% games | −2.7% 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.