Teams

OD 3.0W GIS Neely

2024 NEOTA One-Doubles · NEOTA A18&O 3.0 Women

4 players · average NTRP / 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 →
Schedule8 played
2024-07-27vs OD 3.0W BR TsaiWon 10
W#1 DoublesHeidi MacLane-Hodges / Kara Wedekamm vs Wendi Preston / Lora Kilkenny6-3, 6-3
2024-07-20vs OD 3.0W CRC GartenLost 01
L#1 DoublesGinger Neely / Val Belcher vs Pantshia Gardner / Laura Shoemaker5-7, 2-6
2024-07-13vs OD 3.0W LT KaraLost 01
L#1 DoublesGinger Neely / Val Belcher vs Megan Ha / Carolyn Kara6-7, 1-6
2024-06-29vs OD 3.0W CV2 UrbanowskiWon 10
W#1 DoublesHeidi MacLane-Hodges / Kara Wedekamm vs Lauren Erb / Nancy Paskevich4-6, 6-4, 1-0
2024-06-15vs OD 3.0W PM KalasWon 10
W#1 DoublesGinger Neely / Heidi MacLane-Hodges vs Jennifer Tople / Lindsay Tadsen6-0, 6-0
2024-06-08vs OD 3.0W PW FrazierLost 01
L#1 DoublesVal Belcher / Ginger Neely vs Ashley Frazier / Nicole Drahuschak6-2, 1-6, 1-0
2024-06-01vs OD 3.0W PCC McLeanWon 10
W#1 DoublesVal Belcher / Kara Wedekamm vs Tracy McLean / Stacie Switzer0-6, 7-5, 1-0
2024-05-18Won 10
W#1 DoublesHeidi MacLane-Hodges / Kara Wedekamm vs Pam Nelson / Cheryl Jones1-6, 6-1, 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 standings11 teams · NEOTA A18&O 3.0 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1OD 3.0W PW Frazier7171463
2OD 3.0W BR Tsai6262553
3OD 3.0W MV Brady5252440
4OD 3.0W CRC Garten5353664
5OD 3.0W LT Kara5353876
6OD 3.0W GIS Neely5353968
7OD 3.0W CV2 Urbanowski4343865
8OD 3.0W CV1 Derbyshire34341063
9OD 3.0W PCC McLean16161278
10OD 3.0W PM Kalas17171491
11OD 3.0W BA Nelson08081689

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 2.79 estimated across 4 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.

2.87
Ginger Neely
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.86
Val Belcher
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.81
Heidi MacLane-Hodges
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.61
Kara Wedekamm
usually #1 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.

Kara Wedekamm + Heidi MacLane-Hodges18758% games+11.3% vs expected
Ginger Neely + Val Belcher111249% games+9.8% vs expected
Kara Wedekamm + Val Belcher4541% games−5.9% vs expected
Heidi MacLane-Hodges + Val Belcher4352% gamesnot enough data
Kara Wedekamm + Ginger Neely134 matchesnot enough data
Heidi MacLane-Hodges + Ginger Neely224 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.

Ginger Neely
61W–80L career · 4 lines in 2024
<1%82%18%
2.87
Val Belcher
56W–66L career · 4 lines in 2024
<1%83%16%
2.86
Heidi MacLane-Hodges
113W–134L career · 4 lines in 2024
1%90%9%
2.81
Kara Wedekamm
85W–96L career · 4 lines in 2024
22%78%<1%
2.61

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.