Teams

LCTA18/Dever/MPR

2022 LCTA 18 & Over Fall League · 18 & over Fall League Women 3.5 Night

12 players · average NTRP 3.50 / SOUTH CAROLINA

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 →
Schedule2 played
2023-10-26vs LCTA18/Hutto/MPRWon 21
W#1 SinglesNa Jin Seo vs Sarah Simmonite6-2, 6-3
L#2 DoublesMary Cecil / Allie McCrae vs Heather Williams / Heidi Richter5-7, 3-6
W#3 DoublesKaren Felder / Regina Hallman vs Jessica Hutto / Lisa Kuisel6-3, 6-1
2023-09-21vs LCTA18/Kubu/Snee FarmLost 12
L#1 DoublesPatricia Dever / Jaclyn Cook vs Jean Fifield / Della Barnhill3-6, 4-6
L#1 SinglesTracy DeLuca vs Na Jin Seo2-6, 6-7
W#2 DoublesJeanne Condon / Tracey Frank vs Allison Thomas / Regina Hallman6-1, 3-6, 1-0
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 18 & over Fall League Women 3.5 Night 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 3.17 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.

3.38
Regina Hallman
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
3.34
Mary Cecil
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.32
Kathy Grogan
published
3.31
Kristin Steele
published
3.25
Tracy DeLuca
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
3.25
Allison Thomas
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.19
Val Allen
published
3.17
Peggy Urbanic
published
2.93
Jeanne Condon
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.89
Karen Felder
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.79
Patricia Dever
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Na Jin Seo
usually #1 Singles 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.

Tracy DeLuca + Kathy Grogan8356% games+10.7% vs expected
Karen Felder + Patricia Dever4648% games+3.0% vs expected
Regina Hallman + Kathy Grogan2450% games+2.3% vs expected
Mary Cecil + Regina Hallman5350% games−6.9% vs expected
Jeanne Condon + Kathy Grogan2346% gamesnot enough data
Mary Cecil + Patricia Dever134 matchesnot enough data
Jeanne Condon + Karen Felder314 matchesnot enough data
Mary Cecil + Allison Thomas213 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.

Regina Hallman
46W–33L career · 2 lines in 2022
<1%82%18%
3.38
Mary Cecil
39W–47L career · 1 line in 2022
<1%88%12%
3.34
Kathy Grogan
47W–32L career · no lines in 2022
1%91%9%
3.32
Kristin Steele
75W–89L career · no lines in 2022
1%92%7%
3.31
Tracy DeLuca
31W–23L career · 1 line in 2022
3%95%3%
3.25
3.5
Allison Thomas
16W–34L career · 1 line in 2022
3%95%3%
3.25
Val Allen
19W–18L career · no lines in 2022
7%92%1%
3.19
Peggy Urbanic
30W–33L career · no lines in 2022
9%90%1%
3.17
Jeanne Condon
31W–35L career · 1 line in 2022
69%31%<1%
2.93
Karen Felder
12W–27L career · 1 line in 2022
<1%80%20%
2.89
Patricia Dever
39W–62L career · 1 line in 2022
1%94%5%
2.79
Na Jin Seo
75W–43L career · 2 lines in 2022
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.