Teams

TRI 2.5W BR Timken

2025 NEOTA Tri-Level · NEOTA Women's Tri-Level 2.5

16 players · average NTRP 2.92 / 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 →
Schedule6 played
2025-02-22vs TRI 2.5W WE AllanWon 20
W#1 DoublesFrancie Morrow / Kristin Zalenski vs Lindsay Lodge / Laura Suglia-Isgro6-2, 6-0
W#2 DoublesTiffany Ruwadi / Katie Wernow vs Laura Deyo / Gail Vogel6-2, 6-3
2025-02-01vs TRI 2.5W PW HensleyWon 21
L#1 DoublesAllison Chiofolo / Sara Timken vs Jennifer Atkinson / Anjela Hindman2-6, 1-6
W#2 DoublesKelly Sweeney / Amy Smith vs Mona Thompson / Therese Hensley6-1, 4-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesLindsay Zimmerman / Dena Morrison vs Florina Brown / Wei-Hsuan Liao6-0, 6-3
2025-01-25vs TRI 2.5W MM BramhallWon 21
W#1 DoublesAllison Chiofolo / Kristin Zalenski vs Ashley Frazier / Kin Mei2-6, 6-2, 1-0
L#2 DoublesTana Mellion / Katie Wernow vs Jennifer Smith / Natalie Winer4-6, 4-6
W#3 DoublesElizabeth Milavickas / Evrim Fulmer vs Julia Han / Sanita Kazazic3-6, 6-2, 1-0
2025-01-18vs TRI 2.5W NC PetersWon 21
W#1 DoublesFrancie Morrow / Traci Tsai vs Cathy Wilhelm / Heather Bundschuh6-1, 6-4
L#2 DoublesAmy Smith / Kelly Sweeney vs Megan Peters / Angie Adams2-6, 2-6
W#3 DoublesElizabeth Milavickas / Dena Morrison vs Chassity Pence / Kelly DiBartolo2-6, 6-0, 1-0
2025-01-11vs TRI 2.5W BA NelsonLost 12
L#1 DoublesAllison Chiofolo / Traci Tsai vs Anna Nelson / Julie Brubaker2-6, 7-5, 0-1
L#2 DoublesRachel Brahler / Tana Mellion vs Kathy Kramer / Yolanda Hohman1-6, 4-6
W#3 DoublesEvrim Fulmer / Jacqueline Paulus vs Jenn Johnson / Jamie Routman6-0, 6-0
2025-01-04vs TRI 2.5W TP MeisenbachLost 12
W#1 DoublesFrancie Morrow / Kristin Zalenski vs Laurice Moore / Christine Norman6-4, 6-4
L#2 DoublesTiffany Ruwadi / Katie Wernow vs Kimberly Dickason / Nancy Sidell2-6, 6-3, 0-1
L#3 DoublesDena Morrison / Jane Timken vs Casey Houdek / Anne Laux3-6, 1-6
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 NEOTA Women's Tri-Level 2.5 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 2.77 estimated across 16 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.

3.22
Francie Morrow
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.21
Kristin Zalenski
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.18
Allison Chiofolo
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.16
Sara Timken
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.08
Traci Tsai
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.93
Kelly Sweeney
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.84
Katie Wernow
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.75
Rachel Brahler
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.75
Tiffany Ruwadi
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.73
Tana Mellion
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.64
Jacqueline Paulus
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.58
Dena Morrison
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
2.44
Evrim Fulmer
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
2.43
Lindsay Zimmerman
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.31
Elizabeth Milavickas
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
2.08
Jane Timken
usually #3 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.

Tiffany Ruwadi + Francie Morrow8062% games+17.4% vs expected
Kelly Sweeney + Francie Morrow17858% games+10.7% vs expected
Tiffany Ruwadi + Sara Timken4255% games+8.2% vs expected
Sara Timken + Kristin Zalenski9954% games+8.1% vs expected
Sara Timken + Rachel Brahler3449% games+7.4% vs expected
Francie Morrow + Kristin Zalenski16653% games+7.2% vs expected
Kelly Sweeney + Traci Tsai6851% games+6.4% vs expected
Rachel Brahler + Katie Wernow5449% games+3.4% vs expected
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.

3.5
Francie Morrow
146W–83L career · 3 lines in 2025
4%94%2%
3.22
Kristin Zalenski
63W–71L career · 3 lines in 2025
5%94%1%
3.21
3.5
Allison Chiofolo
83W–87L career · 3 lines in 2025
9%91%1%
3.18
Sara Timken
143W–133L career · 1 line in 2025
10%89%<1%
3.16
Traci Tsai
119W–116L career · 2 lines in 2025
27%73%<1%
3.08
Kelly Sweeney
105W–120L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%70%30%
2.93
Katie Wernow
35W–41L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%89%10%
2.84
Rachel Brahler
51W–72L career · 1 line in 2025
3%95%3%
2.75
Tiffany Ruwadi
46W–29L career · 2 lines in 2025
3%95%2%
2.75
Tana Mellion
32W–49L career · 2 lines in 2025
4%94%2%
2.73
3
Jacqueline Paulus
28W–52L career · 1 line in 2025
15%85%<1%
2.64
2.5
Dena Morrison
53W–40L career · 3 lines in 2025
0%28%72%
2.58
2.5
Evrim Fulmer
10W–8L career · 2 lines in 2025
0%68%32%
2.44
Lindsay Zimmerman
23W–16L career · 1 line in 2025
0%70%30%
2.43
2.5
Elizabeth Milavickas
10W–17L career · 2 lines in 2025
0%93%7%
2.31
Jane Timken
18W–41L career · 1 line in 2025
0%>99%<1%
2.08

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.