Teams

CDTA S A40W3.5 7River Trails Greenberg Sun 6 $26

CDTA 1Summer Adult 40 & Over wknd · nght

21 players · average NTRP 3.50 / CHICAGO

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
W#2 DoublesJill Buckley / Jane Ford vs Amy Barich / Anne Doyle6-4, 6-3
W#3 DoublesElise Bergman / Meg LaMonica vs Mary Cox / Nancy Hammond6-2, 4-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesErin Baker / Jamie Burns vs Jennifer Burnette / Marion Thompson7-5, 6-1
2025-06-30vs CDTA S A40W3.5 3Tam Lund Mon 7 $22Lost 01
L#1 DoublesJill Buckley / Lucie Kreidler vs Jennifer Grady / Patricia Lozada7-6, 4-5, 0-1
W#2 DoublesAnna Swanson / Anne Gallagher vs Vilma Mitev / Svetlana Vinokur4-6, 6-3, 1-0
W#2 DoublesJill Buckley / SoYoung Grote vs Kathy Kasiurak / Tracy Meyer7-5, 2-4, 1-0
L#1 DoublesJessica Vahey / Erin Baker vs Robin Ford / Nicole Perso3-6, 4-6
W#3 DoublesAnna Swanson / Elise Bergman vs Pamela Sherman / Nancy Zinder6-4, 6-5
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 · nght
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1CDTA S A40W3.5 3Tam Lund Mon 7 $2271221022221
2CDTA S A40W3.5 5Lake Bluff Nelson Sun 4 $226223923223
3CDTA S A40W3.5 7River Trails Greenberg Sun 6 $266223924210
4CDTA S A40W3.5 9MT Bann Greeley Sun 10 $2762221026249
5CDTA S A40W3.5 2River Trails Hanrahan Mon 7 $2644141838269
6CDTA S A40W3.5 1MT Chi Brown Fri 7 $31.544141838291
7CDTA S A40W3.5 10Glenbrook Chern Thu 6:30 $2544141839292
8CDTA S A40W3.5 8College Park Okada Sat 4 $2526131939279
9CDTA S A40W3.5 6Tam Kanev Sun 3 $2226131940301
10CDTA S A40W3.5 11Oak Park Roberts Sat 9 $152692349343
11CDTA S A40W3.5 4Score Thompson Sat 10 $201792348346

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 3.27 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.

3.51
Jane Ford
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
3.50
Virginia Kosenkova
published 3.5
3.50
Lyndsay Cavanagh
published 3.5
3.43
Apple Naughton
published 3.5
3.41
Jamie Burns
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.33
Lucie Kreidler
published 3.5
3.27
Jill Buckley
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
3.27
SoYoung Grote
published 3.5
3.26
Jessica Vahey
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.26
Rosa Broseman
published 3.5
Anne Gallagher
published 3.5
Erin Baker
published 3.5
Irene Carod
published 3.5
3.24
Elise Bergman
published 3.5
3.21
Meg LaMonica
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.16
Anna Swanson
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.15
Beatrisa Paz
published 3.5
2.99
Nicole Putzel
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
2.84
Michelle Pilipauskas
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
Kathy Clark
published
Meg Greenberg
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.

Anna Swanson + Elise Bergman6260% games+8.0% vs expected
Lucie Kreidler + SoYoung Grote13756% games+4.6% vs expected
Lucie Kreidler + Meg Greenberg111453% games+3.9% vs expected
Jill Buckley + Jane Ford121151% games+1.7% vs expected
SoYoung Grote + Virginia Kosenkova10354% games+1.3% vs expected
Michelle Pilipauskas + Beatrisa Paz4646% games+1.2% vs expected
Irene Carod + Beatrisa Paz6443% games−0.0% vs expected
Rosa Broseman + Apple Naughton5554% games−2.3% 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.

Jane Ford
76W–39L career · 4 lines in 2025
<1%47%53%
3.51
3.5
Virginia Kosenkova
63W–47L career · no lines in 2025
<1%49%51%
3.50
3.5
Lyndsay Cavanagh
126W–65L career · no lines in 2025
<1%52%48%
3.50
3.5
Apple Naughton
225W–194L career · no lines in 2025
<1%71%29%
3.43
3.5
Jamie Burns
60W–43L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%75%25%
3.41
3.5
Lucie Kreidler
165W–131L career · no lines in 2025
1%90%10%
3.33
Jill Buckley
108W–100L career · 3 lines in 2025
2%94%4%
3.27
3.5
SoYoung Grote
111W–94L career · no lines in 2025
2%94%4%
3.27
Jessica Vahey
41W–25L career · 1 line in 2025
2%94%3%
3.26
3.5
Rosa Broseman
58W–40L career · no lines in 2025
2%95%3%
3.26
3.5
Anne Gallagher
35W–15L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
3.5
Erin Baker
21W–14L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
3.5
Irene Carod
50W–49L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
3.5
Elise Bergman
72W–95L career · no lines in 2025
3%94%2%
3.24
Meg LaMonica
93W–98L career · 1 line in 2025
5%94%1%
3.21
3.5
Anna Swanson
78W–61L career · 2 lines in 2025
10%89%<1%
3.16
3.5
Beatrisa Paz
170W–136L career · no lines in 2025
13%87%<1%
3.15
Nicole Putzel
17W–30L career · 1 line in 2025
54%46%<1%
2.99
Michelle Pilipauskas
40W–42L career · 4 lines in 2025
<1%88%11%
2.84
Kathy Clark
8W–2L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Meg Greenberg
35W–91L 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.