Teams

Rosenberg D2

2021 18&Over Women Manhattan · 3.5 Women

16 players · average NTRP 3.20 / METROPOLITAN REGION

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 →
Schedule8 played
2021-06-09vs Kamen/Boutros D2Split 22
L#1 DoublesJulie Kwak / Lorri Ahl vs Cecilia Vonderheide / Robin Kamen4-6, 4-6
L#1 SinglesLindsey Elias vs Esther Hong0-6, 1-6
W#2 DoublesTara Bell / Cari Harewood vs Choi Fei Ko / Elaine Bauer6-3, 4-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesAllison Rosenberg / Elizabeth Bednarz vs Rosemary Moukad / Sandra Borrelle6-3, 2-6, 1-0
2021-06-03vs Rowe/Qureshi D2Lost 01
L#2 DoublesTara Bell / Susan Petrie vs Fredrica Ford / Kate Green0-6, 1-6
2021-05-25vs Lindholm D1Lost 14
L#1 DoublesCari Harewood / Allison Rosenberg vs Kat Brown / Kristen Durkin1-6, 0-6
L#1 SinglesMandy Wong vs Leslie Chen1-6, 2-6
W#2 DoublesNaziha Aldaia / Sonia Naoum vs Christina Sethi / Chani Churchill6-3, 2-6, 1-0
L#2 SinglesAnique Lee vs Family Jayanti1-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesLorri Ahl / Audra Bonacki vs NANCY Lee / Alexandra Scott1-6, 3-6
2021-05-19vs Caress D2Lost 01
L#1 SinglesMandy Wong vs Dorothy Plechaty2-6, 4-6
2021-05-13vs Kamen/Boutros D2Lost 23
L#1 DoublesCari Harewood / Lillian Cutaj vs Esther Hong / Paisley Kelling4-6, 4-6
W#1 SinglesMandy Wong vs Lorea Canales6-0, 6-0
L#2 DoublesTara Bell / Susan Petrie vs Jennifer Ahn Misner / Choi Fei Ko6-2, 2-6, 0-1
L#2 SinglesLindsey Elias vs Armen Brash4-6, 4-6
W#3 DoublesJulie Kwak / Lorri Ahl vs Maria Ieni / Leeanne Wright5-7, 6-3, 1-0
2021-04-26vs Kates/Xu D1Lost 03
L#1 DoublesAllison Rosenberg / Susan Petrie vs Julia Kates / Ileana Kutler4-6, 1-6
L#1 SinglesTara Bell vs Nicola Chiba2-6, 1-6
L#2 SinglesCari Harewood vs Grace Doyle3-6, 6-7
2021-04-19vs Rowe/Qureshi D2Lost 01
L#1 SinglesMandy Wong vs Miriam Brunnwasser1-6, 0-6
2021-04-11vs Maselbas D1Lost 02
L#1 DoublesTara Bell / Sonia Naoum vs Cameron Suratt / Meghan Astrachan6-7, 4-6
L#1 SinglesMandy Wong vs Mary Lou Bunn5-7, 3-6
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 3.5 Women 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 3.04 estimated across 4 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
Lillian Cutaj
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
Cari Harewood
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.01
Tara Bell
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #1 Doubles 20% · published 3
2.97
Lorri Ahl
usually #2 Doubles 42%, also #1 Doubles 42% · published
Elizabeth Bednarz
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.68
Allison Rosenberg
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3
Anique Lee
usually #2 Singles 100% · published
Audra Bonacki
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Brigitta Dellorusso
published
Crissa Caponi
published
Julie Kwak
usually #1 Singles 43%, also #2 Doubles 29% · published
Lindsey Elias
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 50% · published
Mandy Wong
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
Naziha Aldaia
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Sonia Naoum
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Susan Petrie
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · 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.

Sonia Naoum + Naziha Aldaia101942% games−3.3% vs expected
Allison Rosenberg + Elizabeth Bednarz31238% games−7.7% vs expected
Allison Rosenberg + Cari Harewood134 matchesnot enough data
Julie Kwak + Lorri Ahl314 matchesnot enough data
Cari Harewood + Tara Bell123 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.

3.5
Lillian Cutaj
88W–51L career · 1 line in 2021
<1%46%54%
3.51
3.5
Cari Harewood
17W–49L career · 4 lines in 2021
not enough data
3
Tara Bell
39W–55L career · 5 lines in 2021
<1%48%52%
3.01
Lorri Ahl
104W–81L career · 12 lines in 2021
<1%58%42%
2.97
3
Elizabeth Bednarz
10W–48L career · 1 line in 2021
not enough data
3
Allison Rosenberg
26W–112L career · 3 lines in 2021
8%91%1%
2.68
Anique Lee
1W–6L career · 1 line in 2021
not enough data
Audra Bonacki
0W–1L career · 1 line in 2021
not enough data
Brigitta Dellorusso
1W–2L career · no lines in 2021
not enough data
Crissa Caponi
1W–2L career · no lines in 2021
not enough data
Julie Kwak
34W–33L career · 7 lines in 2021
not enough data
Lindsey Elias
0W–2L career · 2 lines in 2021
not enough data
Mandy Wong
38W–17L career · 5 lines in 2021
not enough data
Naziha Aldaia
11W–25L career · 1 line in 2021
not enough data
Sonia Naoum
16W–32L career · 1 line in 2021
not enough data
Susan Petrie
0W–13L career · 2 lines in 2021
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.