Teams

Manor 4.0

2025 Montgomery Doubles Winter Women · Montgomery Doubles Winter 4.0 Women

14 players · average NTRP 3.67 / MARYLAND

View scouting list →
Schedule1 played
2025-01-13vs Congressional 4.0Lost 03
L#1 DoublesCathy Ventrell-Monsees / Sarah Albus vs Carolyn Ridgway / Lauren Johnston2-6, 4-6
L#2 DoublesLisa Hanagan / Susan Quirk vs Shivani Gupta / Meghan Bracewell5-7, 7-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesCammie Condell / Melisssa Hacopian vs Teresa Figgs / Christy Giulieri1-6, 6-4, 0-1
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 Montgomery Doubles Winter 4.0 Women 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 3.44 estimated across 10 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.

Cara Carino
published 4
3.73
Sherri Dixon
published
3.63
Cathy Ventrell-Monsees
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.54
Cammie Condell
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.49
Lisa Hanagan
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.49
Kelley Donellan
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.46
Anne Giampetroni
published 3.5
3.44
Melisssa Hacopian
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
3.27
Cecilia Parker
published 3.5
3.24
Amy Burgoyne
published 3.5
3.13
Rebecca Landers
published
Sarah Albus
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Sherifa Fahmy
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Susan Quirk
usually #2 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.

Amy Burgoyne + Cammie Condell224 matchesnot enough data
Cecilia Parker + Anne Giampetroni213 matchesnot enough data
Susan Quirk + Lisa Hanagan123 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
Cara Carino
1W–1L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Sherri Dixon
2W–4L career · no lines in 2025
5%92%3%
3.73
4
Cathy Ventrell-Monsees
3W–5L career · 1 line in 2025
17%83%<1%
3.63
3.5
Cammie Condell
3W–3L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%38%62%
3.54
Lisa Hanagan
1W–3L career · 1 line in 2025
52%48%<1%
3.49
Kelley Donellan
6W–3L career · 2 lines in 2025
53%47%<1%
3.49
3.5
Anne Giampetroni
2W–1L career · no lines in 2025
<1%60%40%
3.46
Melisssa Hacopian
3W–3L career · 3 lines in 2025
67%33%<1%
3.44
3.5
Cecilia Parker
2W–2L career · no lines in 2025
3%92%5%
3.27
3.5
Amy Burgoyne
2W–4L career · no lines in 2025
4%93%3%
3.24
Rebecca Landers
1W–6L career · no lines in 2025
17%82%<1%
3.13
Sarah Albus
0W–1L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Sherifa Fahmy
2W–1L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Susan Quirk
1W–2L career · 1 line in 2025
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.