Teams

FV:Sullivan/Hefler

2022-23 NCT Tri Level Women · 3.5 Women 1

6 players · average NTRP 3.67 / NORTHERN CONNECTICUT

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
2022-11-27vs ETC:Hit and Run:Maher/WillardLost 01
L#1 DoublesSuzanne Petersen / Paula Smyth vs Amy Willard / Karen Bradway1-6, 0-6
2022-11-04vs SIMS:Goldies:SchusterLost 01
L#1 DoublesElizabeth Keppel / Carrie Hammond vs Kathleen Schuster / Jennifer Shiman4-6, 1-6
2022-10-27vs BSF:Pacers and Acers:CoccomoLost 01
L#1 DoublesKathi Hefler / Suzanne Petersen vs Molly Pietrantonio / Stacie Espeso5-7, 5-7
2022-10-24Won 10
W#1 DoublesDeborah Sullivan / Elizabeth Keppel vs Susan Anderson / Susan Henne6-2, 6-2
2022-10-13vs BSF:FedHeads:DoddWon 10
W#1 DoublesCarrie Hammond / Deborah Sullivan vs Teresa Barton / Shelley Dodd3-6, 7-5, 1-0
2022-09-23vs BSF:Some Strings Attached:HoganWon 10
W#1 DoublesPaula Smyth / Kathi Hefler vs Louisa Hogan / Debbie Horovitz7-6, 6-1
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 standings4 teams · 3.5 Women 1
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1SIMS:Goldies:Schuster5151338
2FV:Sullivan/Hefler3333760
3BSF:Some Strings Attached:Hogan3333764
4BSF:FedHeads:Dodd15151064

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 3.17 estimated across 3 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.

3.48
Deborah Sullivan
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.18
Elizabeth Keppel
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
2.84
Carrie Hammond
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
Kathi Hefler
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Paula Smyth
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Suzanne Petersen
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.

Kathi Hefler + Elizabeth Keppel2551% games+8.1% vs expected
Deborah Sullivan + Paula Smyth11553% games+5.7% vs expected
Deborah Sullivan + Elizabeth Keppel10755% games+5.1% vs expected
Carrie Hammond + Deborah Sullivan7750% games+2.4% vs expected
Carrie Hammond + Paula Smyth4150% games−1.8% vs expected
Kathi Hefler + Deborah Sullivan3842% games−7.1% vs expected
Kathi Hefler + Paula Smyth3250% gamesnot enough data
Suzanne Petersen + Kathi Hefler314 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
Deborah Sullivan
175W–129L career · 2 lines in 2023
56%44%<1%
3.48
3.5
Elizabeth Keppel
60W–47L career · 2 lines in 2023
8%91%1%
3.18
3.5
Carrie Hammond
24W–40L career · 2 lines in 2023
89%11%<1%
2.84
Kathi Hefler
75W–82L career · 2 lines in 2023
not enough data
Paula Smyth
66W–59L career · 2 lines in 2023
not enough data
Suzanne Petersen
21W–12L career · no lines in 2023
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.