Teams

LIB-Inoue 30 WOMEN winter SINGLES F

2026 aSEM WINTER TEAM SINGLES · 2026 WOMEN 3.0 WINTER SINGLES SEM

8 players · average NTRP 3.00 / 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.

View scouting list →
Schedule9 played
W#2 SinglesStephanie Burke vs Julia Garcia-fuster6-3, 3-6, 1-0
L#1 SinglesStephanie Burke vs Heather Loselle2-6, 6-7
L#2 SinglesAya Inoue vs Kristi Waddell4-6, 3-6
W#3 SinglesElisabeth Berry vs Amy Hulderman6-1, 6-0
L#1 SinglesAya Inoue vs Jude Davies7-5, 2-4, 0-1
L#2 SinglesChristie Barrett vs Nhu Do6-4, 1-3, 0-1
W#3 SinglesElisabeth Berry vs Cecilia Fagan6-0, 5-4
W#1 SinglesStephanie Burke vs Joleen Cruze7-5, 2-3
W#2 SinglesLibby Hemphill vs Julia Garcia-fuster6-3, 3-4
L#1 SinglesLibby Hemphill vs Corinne Collins4-6, 2-3
W#2 SinglesMaren Dobson vs Jo Darlington6-1, 6-0
W#3 SinglesAya Inoue vs Amy Hulderman6-1, 6-0
W#1 SinglesLibby Hemphill vs Barbara Kramer6-2, 4-6
L#2 SinglesCarrie Bake-Wong vs Carolynn Hayman2-6, 4-5
W#3 SinglesAya Inoue vs Yoshiko Redding6-1, 7-5
L#1 SinglesCarrie Bake-Wong vs Julia Garcia-fuster3-6, 2-4
L#2 SinglesChristie Barrett vs Suzanne Thiele4-6, 0-2
L#1 SinglesLibby Hemphill vs Heather Loselle3-6, 5-4
W#3 SinglesChristie Barrett vs Nicole Siepierski6-0, 6-1
L#2 SinglesMaren Dobson vs Heather Vance3-6, 3-2
L#3 SinglesAya Inoue vs Jude Davies7-6, 0-3
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 standings19 teams · 2026 WOMEN 3.0 WINTER SINGLES SEM
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 2.85 estimated across 8 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.

3.06
Maren Dobson
usually #2 Singles 100% · published 3
3.04
Stephanie Burke
usually #1 Singles 67%, also #2 Singles 33% · published
2.99
Libby Hemphill
usually #1 Singles 75%, also #2 Singles 25% · published 3
2.80
Carrie Bake-Wong
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 50% · published 3
2.77
Elisabeth Berry
usually #3 Singles 100% · published 3
2.73
Aya Inoue
usually #3 Singles 60%, also #1 Singles 20% · published 3
2.72
Kate Tremel
published 3
2.68
Christie Barrett
usually #2 Singles 67%, also #3 Singles 33% · published 3
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.

Stephanie Burke + Maren Dobson4163% 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.

3
Maren Dobson
93W–37L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%32%68%
3.06
Stephanie Burke
81W–68L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%39%61%
3.04
3
Libby Hemphill
120W–78L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%52%48%
2.99
3
Carrie Bake-Wong
39W–35L career · 2 lines in 2026
1%93%6%
2.80
3
Elisabeth Berry
29W–16L career · 2 lines in 2026
2%94%4%
2.77
3
Aya Inoue
36W–46L career · 5 lines in 2026
4%94%2%
2.73
3
Kate Tremel
62W–81L career · no lines in 2026
5%94%1%
2.72
3
Christie Barrett
51W–31L career · 3 lines in 2026
8%91%1%
2.68

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.