Teams

Hazel

2021 Montgomery Adult 40 & Over Spring · Adult 40 & Over Women 3.5

14 players · average NTRP 3.50 / MARYLAND

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2021-08-05vs Cosmic Strings 40Won 10
W#1 DoublesKim Hazel / Evelyn Chan vs Thedra White / Gloria McDowell6-4, 6-4
2021-08-01vs KimSplit 11
L#2 DoublesKim Hazel / Joanna Tice vs Sheila Farrell / Shirley Hsieh-Lau7-6, 5-7, 1-0
W#3 DoublesSandy Horowitz / Mary Beth Etherton vs Anne Findley / Suzanne Krudys6-1, 6-2
2021-06-27Won 10
W#1 DoublesJoanna Tice / Kim Hazel vs Jen Kim / Loan Nguyen6-2, 6-4
2021-06-03vs Cosmic Strings 40Lost 01
L#1 DoublesKim Hazel / Cynthia Coe vs Cora Ho / Alison Serino4-6, 2-6
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 standings for Adult 40 & Over Women 3.5 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 3.26 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.

3.90
Evelyn Chan
published 4
3.46
Erin Newsome Moltz
published 3.5
3.37
Penelope Bell
published
3.35
Maureen Cook
published
3.33
Nancy Cooper
published
3.33
Desiree Nichtula
published 3.5
Andrea Motley
published 3.5
Frances Brennan
published 3.5
3.20
Mary Barton-Dock
published
3.17
Sandy Horowitz
published
3.11
Mary Beth Etherton
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
2.98
Kim Hazel
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
2.66
Dora Macia
published 3
Millette Miller
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.

Mary Beth Etherton + Kim Hazel213 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.

4
Evelyn Chan
22W–13L career · no lines in 2021
<1%78%22%
3.90
3.5
Erin Newsome Moltz
5W–7L career · no lines in 2021
<1%61%39%
3.46
Penelope Bell
18W–9L career · no lines in 2021
<1%84%16%
3.37
Maureen Cook
21W–21L career · no lines in 2021
<1%87%13%
3.35
Nancy Cooper
2W–1L career · no lines in 2021
1%90%10%
3.33
3.5
Desiree Nichtula
4W–5L career · no lines in 2021
1%90%10%
3.33
3.5
Andrea Motley
1W–4L career · no lines in 2021
not enough data
3.5
Frances Brennan
3W–4L career · no lines in 2021
not enough data
Mary Barton-Dock
4W–10L career · no lines in 2021
6%93%1%
3.20
Sandy Horowitz
13W–20L career · no lines in 2021
10%90%1%
3.17
3.5
Mary Beth Etherton
141W–140L career · 1 line in 2021
20%80%<1%
3.11
3.5
Kim Hazel
98W–117L career · 4 lines in 2021
56%44%<1%
2.98
3
Dora Macia
3W–2L career · no lines in 2021
11%89%<1%
2.66
Millette Miller
7W–4L career · no lines in 2021
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.