Teams

Jorgensen

2025 Neb. Adult 18&Over Tri-Level · 3.5

12 players · average NTRP 3.75 / NEBRASKA

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 →
Schedule6 played
2025-09-24vs OM/Tong-Vineyard/Mid-TriWSplit 11
L#1 DoublesTammy Weber / Victoria Leigh Glesmann vs Emily Tesnohlidek / Jennifer Zientarski4-6, 1-6
W#2 DoublesCynthia Waldrop / Karen Jennings vs Karen Andresen / Wei Tong6-4, 3-6, 1-0
2025-09-17vs HazelriggWon 21
L#1 DoublesTory Jorgensen / Jennifer Lindner vs Lindsay Clayton / Katie Fagan5-7, 4-6
W#2 DoublesKaren Jennings / Beth Stiles vs Terri Fuxa / Denise Hazelrigg3-6, 6-4, 1-0
W#3 DoublesCindy Bluml / Nicolette Diamantis vs Anne Conlon / Claire Hogan6-2, 6-3
2025-09-03vs NE/Banks-Thielen/Tri-3.5-4.5WLost 03
L#1 DoublesBeth Stiles / Cynthia Waldrop vs Brittni Redding / Shannon Dombrowski1-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesTory Jorgensen / Jo Lehan vs Jolene Johnson / Molly Hunt-Spisak4-6, 4-6
L#3 DoublesCharlene Liesveld / Maxine Martin vs Brandi Goldapp / Chloe Ekborg1-6, 2-6
2025-08-27vs GradovilleWon 21
L#1 DoublesTammy Weber / Jennifer Lindner vs LIZ van der TORRE / Nina Ngo5-7, 1-6
W#2 DoublesTory Jorgensen / Jo Lehan vs Shawnalyn Sunagawa / Amanda Caven7-6, 4-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesMaxine Martin / Nicolette Diamantis vs Kim Tracy / Kersten Higgins6-3, 7-6
2025-08-20vs Heard/KingstonLost 12
L#1 DoublesVictoria Leigh Glesmann / Tammy Weber vs Andrea Jensen / Donna Wyse1-6, 3-6
W#2 DoublesKaren Jennings / Jennifer Lindner vs Julia Elkin / Kari Stempson6-2, 6-2
L#3 DoublesCindy Bluml / Charlene Liesveld vs Tara Arnold / Lindsey Noonan2-6, 4-6
2025-08-13vs OM/Blake/Mid-TriWLost 03
L#1 DoublesBeth Stiles / Cynthia Waldrop vs Kristen Paulmeyer / Allyah Rayyan2-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesVictoria Leigh Glesmann / Jo Lehan vs Rachel Miller / Bridget Mckeegan7-6, 0-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesCindy Bluml / Maxine Martin vs Bethany Clark / Heather Siebken6-3, 2-6, 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 standings11 teams · 3.5
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1OM/Tong-Vineyard/Mid-TriW6014410132
2NE/Banks-Thielen/Tri-3.5-4.5W511449121
3OM/Blake/Mid-TriW4213515138
4LI/Wain/Mid-TriW4210821162
5LI/Tegler/Mid-TriW3311717148
6Heard/Kingston3381021175
7Mandigo3371124184
8Garcia2481021171
9Jorgensen2461227195
10Gradoville1541431205
11Hazelrigg0641428199

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 3.38 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.

3.76
Jo Lehan
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.49
Beth Stiles
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.48
Jennifer Lindner
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.45
Tammy Weber
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.42
Cynthia Waldrop
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.39
Tory Jorgensen
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
3.36
Cindy Bluml
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.34
Victoria Leigh Glesmann
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.32
Charlene Liesveld
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.08
Nicolette Diamantis
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.04
Maxine Martin
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Karen Jennings
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.

Beth Stiles + Tory Jorgensen6159% games+10.3% vs expected
Beth Stiles + Maxine Martin6551% games+4.2% vs expected
Nicolette Diamantis + Jo Lehan3345% games−4.6% vs expected
Tory Jorgensen + Jennifer Lindner2443% games−5.0% vs expected
Maxine Martin + Cindy Bluml81048% games−5.7% vs expected
Tory Jorgensen + Jo Lehan4448% games−9.1% vs expected
Beth Stiles + Karen Jennings134 matchesnot enough data
Nicolette Diamantis + Tory Jorgensen314 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.

Jo Lehan
87W–64L career · 3 lines in 2025
3%92%4%
3.76
4
Beth Stiles
79W–60L career · 3 lines in 2025
54%46%<1%
3.49
Jennifer Lindner
55W–52L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%<1%>99%
3.48
Tammy Weber
9W–22L career · 3 lines in 2025
63%37%<1%
3.45
4
Cynthia Waldrop
6W–7L career · 3 lines in 2025
71%29%<1%
3.42
Tory Jorgensen
98W–75L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%77%22%
3.39
3.5
Cindy Bluml
117W–100L career · 3 lines in 2025
1%84%16%
3.36
Victoria Leigh Glesmann
35W–46L career · 3 lines in 2025
1%86%13%
3.34
3.5
Charlene Liesveld
33W–49L career · 2 lines in 2025
1%89%10%
3.32
Nicolette Diamantis
46W–83L career · 2 lines in 2025
28%71%<1%
3.08
Maxine Martin
45W–47L career · 3 lines in 2025
38%62%<1%
3.04
Karen Jennings
15W–23L career · no lines 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.