Teams

X18 6.0 3 GR Neely

2024 NEOTA Mixed 18 & Over · NEOTA 18&O 6.0 Mixed

14 players · average NTRP 3.00 / 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 →
Schedule5 played
2024-07-14vs X18 6.0 3 LT2 QuistLost 03
L#1 DoublesGinger Neely / Brian Toth vs Brandon Walch / Nicole Peters5-7, 3-6
L#2 DoublesTammy Iams / John Ragner vs Clare Stacey / Dan Johnson0-6, 4-6
L#3 DoublesPam Miller / Jon Kellicker vs Megan Ha / Max Roszkowski0-6, 1-6
2024-07-07vs X18 6.0 2 PM KalasWon 21
L#1 DoublesGinger Neely / Michael Curtis vs Christine Schwall / Curt Schwall6-3, 3-6, 0-1
W#2 DoublesVal Belcher / Brian Toth vs Natasha Kalas / John Kalas7-6, 7-6
W#3 DoublesHeidi MacLane-Hodges / Jon Kellicker vs Jennifer Tople / Edward Tople6-1, 6-0
2024-06-30vs X18 6.0 2 CC LombardoLost 12
L#1 DoublesJames Neely / Pam Miller vs David Lombardo / Shelby Novick3-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesT Bortz / Lisa Bortz vs Joe Bocanegra / Stephanie Mabee2-6, 1-6
W#3 DoublesTim Wedekamm / Kara Wedekamm vs Thomas Kuttler / Michelle Nelson3-6, 7-6, 1-0
2024-06-16vs X18 6.0 2 LT1 BissellLost 03
L#1 DoublesGinger Neely / Michael Curtis vs Patricia Bissell / Eric Bissell5-7, 3-6
L#2 DoublesJames Neely / Pam Miller vs GEORGE NEMETH / Melissa Nemeth1-6, 7-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesHeidi MacLane-Hodges / Jon Kellicker vs Sandra Hunsicker / Michael O'Connell2-6, 6-3, 0-1
2024-05-19vs X18 6.0 3 LT2 QuistLost 03
L#1 DoublesGinger Neely / Michael Curtis vs Lissette Messick / Stuart Jackson1-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesVal Belcher / John Ragner vs Megan Ha / Max Roszkowski2-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesKara Wedekamm / Brian Toth vs Elizabeth Meloy / Geoff Fiedler2-6, 3-6
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 standings14 teams · NEOTA 18&O 6.0 Mixed
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1X18 6.0 3 NC Snyder91201022218
2X18 6.0 MV3 Herbuck9124623254
3X18 6.0 3 LT2 Quist8223716185
4X18 6.0 2 CC Lombardo82201021206
5X18 6.0 PW Merugu64201025240
6X18 6.0 MV1 Anderson64171331264
7X18 6.0 2 LT1 Bissell55161433275
8X18 6.0 CV Carroll55131737297
9X18 6.0 2 TP Dean46151531252
10X18 6.0 3 GR Neely37102043308
11X18 6.0 2 PM Kalas28111942301
12X18 6.0 MV2 Carracher2892144303
13X18 6.0 MM Bode2872348317
14X18 6.0 3 AS Philippon1952552347

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 2.71 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.

3.02
Michael Curtis
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.96
James Neely
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
2.87
Ginger Neely
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.86
Val Belcher
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.81
Heidi MacLane-Hodges
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Brian Toth
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.70
John Ragner
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.62
Lisa Bortz
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.61
Kara Wedekamm
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.54
T Bortz
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.45
Tammy Iams
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.38
Pam Miller
usually #2 Doubles 33%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
Jon Kellicker
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Tim Wedekamm
usually #3 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.

Tammy Iams + John Ragner2840% games−3.1% vs expected
T Bortz + Lisa Bortz31239% games−13.9% vs expected
Michael Curtis + Ginger Neely4646% gamesnot enough data
John Ragner + Val Belcher2441% gamesnot enough data
Kara Wedekamm + Tim Wedekamm3342% gamesnot enough data
Ginger Neely + James Neely0627% gamesnot enough data
John Ragner + Heidi MacLane-Hodges1447% gamesnot enough data
Val Belcher + Brian Toth123 matchesnot 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.

Michael Curtis
72W–44L career · 3 lines in 2024
<1%45%55%
3.02
James Neely
13W–36L career · 2 lines in 2024
62%38%<1%
2.96
Ginger Neely
61W–80L career · 4 lines in 2024
<1%82%18%
2.87
Val Belcher
56W–66L career · 2 lines in 2024
<1%83%16%
2.86
Heidi MacLane-Hodges
113W–134L career · 2 lines in 2024
1%90%9%
2.81
3
Brian Toth
2W–11L career · 3 lines in 2024
not enough data
John Ragner
28W–48L career · 2 lines in 2024
7%91%2%
2.70
Lisa Bortz
44W–102L career · 1 line in 2024
19%81%<1%
2.62
Kara Wedekamm
85W–96L career · 2 lines in 2024
22%78%<1%
2.61
T Bortz
31W–88L career · 1 line in 2024
40%60%<1%
2.54
Tammy Iams
57W–141L career · 1 line in 2024
64%36%<1%
2.45
Pam Miller
21W–44L career · 3 lines in 2024
0%81%19%
2.38
Jon Kellicker
2W–4L career · 3 lines in 2024
not enough data
Tim Wedekamm
3W–3L career · 1 line 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.