6RCAA-SHAW-clay-dubs hard-sing AD18&O 40NW TU F3
2023 SEM ADULT 18 & OVER NIGHT WOMEN · 4.0 WOMEN TUES PM SEM
21 players · average NTRP 3.83 / S.E. MICHIGAN
No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.
Schedule10 played
i
Flight standings20 teams · 4.0 WOMEN TUES PM SEM
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13DEER-MENGYAN AD18&O 40NW TU SEM F2 | 10 | 0 | 22 | 334 |
| 24FAC-JAM AD18&O 40NW TU SEM F1 | 9 | 1 | 35 | 362 |
| 31OHCC-MYLOD AD18&O 40NW TU SEM F1 | 9 | 1 | 39 | 367 |
| 44LIB-SAULD AD18&O 40NW TU SEM F3 | 9 | 1 | 44 | 396 |
| 56BRC-CLEARY AD18&O 40NW TU SEM F2 | 7 | 3 | 47 | 409 |
| 66RCAA-SHAW-clay-dubs hard-sing AD18&O 40NW TU F3 | 7 | 3 | 48 | 392 |
| 73MONY-MORGAN AD18&O 40NW TU SEM F3 | 6 | 4 | 52 | 444 |
| 85BRC-SNELL AD18&O 40NW TU SEM F1 | 5 | 5 | 43 | 379 |
| 91LIFE-SZYMANSKI AD18&O 40NW TU SEM F2 | 4 | 6 | 60 | 459 |
| 106BT-EBERT AD18&O 40NW TU SEM F1 | 4 | 6 | 62 | 478 |
| 112NAC-MALY AD18&O 40NW TU SEM F3 | 3 | 7 | 62 | 481 |
| 125TROY-LIVINGSTON AD18&O 40NW TU SEM F2 | 3 | 7 | 68 | 480 |
| 131AAREC-pio-GOVE AD18&O 40NW TU SEM F3 | 3 | 7 | 72 | 507 |
| 142COURT 4-HELD AD18&O 40NW TU SEM F2 | 3 | 7 | 72 | 497 |
| 154PEACH-DEGUZMAN AD18&O 40NW TU SEM F2 | 3 | 7 | 75 | 525 |
| 165HV-SHIELDS AD18&O 40NW TU SEM F3 | 2 | 8 | 67 | 485 |
| 172DCD-COOLEY AD18&O 40NW TU SEM F1 | 2 | 8 | 74 | 496 |
| 183FAC-STEINER AD18&O 40NW TU SEM F1 | 1 | 9 | 78 | 516 |
| 19orch-needs captain AD18&O 40NW TU SEM F | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 20zteam drop 802209 mar 20 BCC-STRACHAN AD18&O 40NW | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.
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 3.50 estimated across 13 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.
Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.
| Padma Nallamothu + Stephanie Preston | 8–2 | 57% games | +9.8% vs expected |
| Carol Miller + Janet Palmer | 4–2 | 62% games | +9.7% vs expected |
| Jean Wang + Dee Lamphear | 4–1 | 61% games | +9.5% vs expected |
| Megan Etheridge + Dee Lamphear | 30–9 | 59% games | +7.7% vs expected |
| Susi Shaw + Padma Nallamothu | 7–3 | 53% games | +5.3% vs expected |
| Padma Nallamothu + Roopa Gurm | 7–7 | 53% games | +4.0% vs expected |
| Roopa Gurm + Stephanie Preston | 4–2 | 60% games | +3.8% vs expected |
| Lynda Norton + Emily Hastie | 7–9 | 48% games | −0.5% vs expected |
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.
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.