NWO 18&Over 3.5W Aston/Davis-SVC
2025 NWO Adult 18 & Over Night · NWO Adult 18 & Over 3.5 Women Night
15 players · average NTRP 3.25 / NORTHWESTERN OHIO
No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.
Schedule12 played
i
Flight standings16 teams · NWO Adult 18 & Over 3.5 Women Night
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1NWO 18&Over 3.5W McKee/Williams-UofF | 12 | 0 | 33 | 341 |
| 2NWO 18&Over 3.5W Kirby/Gottschalk FT | 11 | 1 | 39 | 392 |
| 3NWO 18&Over 3.5W Walton/Nejedlik-SVC | 10 | 2 | 29 | 376 |
| 4NWO 18&Over 3.5W Knoll/Walsh-PTC | 10 | 2 | 39 | 416 |
| 5NWO 18&Over 3.5W George-SVC | 8 | 4 | 58 | 511 |
| 6NWO 18&Over 3.5W Aston/Davis-SVC | 8 | 4 | 65 | 542 |
| 7NWO 18&Over 3.5W Cody/Banker-Northview | 7 | 5 | 57 | 465 |
| 8NWO 18&Over 3.5W Copa/Daniel-TWOS | 6 | 6 | 68 | 554 |
| 9NWO 18&Over 3.5W Ryder-PTC | 5 | 7 | 66 | 509 |
| 10NWO 18&Over 3.5W Cable/Cunningham-PTC | 5 | 7 | 76 | 552 |
| 11NWO 18&Over 3.5W Szczechowski-AW | 4 | 8 | 77 | 558 |
| 12NWO 18&Over 3.5W Betz -Inverness | 4 | 8 | 84 | 569 |
| 13NWO 18&Over 3.5W Modlin/Kimaid-SVC | 2 | 10 | 86 | 621 |
| 14NWO 18&Over 3.5W Minicozzi/Minicozzi-Bedford | 2 | 10 | 89 | 599 |
| 15NWO 18&Over 3.5W Burkett/Burkett-Southview | 2 | 10 | 91 | 623 |
| 16NWO 18&Over 3.5W Roscoe/Carver-SO | 0 | 12 | 111 | 696 |
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 2.99 estimated across 10 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.
| Annette Barnes + Heather Ha Vo | 12–16 | 48% games | +4.0% vs expected |
| Kim Sofo + Brenda Rafac | 29–21 | 50% games | +3.5% vs expected |
| Evette Rudolph + Annette Barnes | 4–3 | 51% games | −1.3% vs expected |
| Diana Davis + Annette Barnes | 4–5 | 45% games | −3.1% vs expected |
| Annette Barnes + Lisa Babbitt | 6–10 | 43% games | −3.9% vs expected |
| Elaine Karamol + Diana Davis | 0–10 | 29% games | −7.6% vs expected |
| Elaine Karamol + Brenda Dodson | 3–2 | 41% games | not enough data |
| Annette Barnes + Julie Ann Roehl | 1–4 | 39% games | not enough data |
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.