4TROY-Karamon 55 WOMEN COMBO F1
2025 cSEM FALL COMBO DOUBLES · WOMEN 55 COMBO SEM
15 players · average NTRP 2.80 / S.E. MICHIGAN
No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.
Schedule9 played
i
Flight standings19 teams · WOMEN 55 COMBO SEM
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13EAST-Bates 55 WOMEN COMBO F1 | 9 | 0 | 3 | 126 |
| 26WESS-Reamer 55 WOMEN COMBO F3 | 8 | 0 | 5 | 94 |
| 35LIB-Barden 55 WOMEN COMBO F | 8 | 2 | 22 | 248 |
| 41WESS-Smiley Studier 55 WOMEN COMBO F4 | 7 | 2 | 20 | 195 |
| 53LIB-Inoue 55 WOMEN COMBO F2 | 7 | 3 | 29 | 264 |
| 62MONY-Collins 55 WOMEN COMBO F2 | 6 | 4 | 30 | 246 |
| 75BEV-Netschke 55 WOMEN COMBO F3 | 5 | 3 | 28 | 217 |
| 82BRC-Parsons 55 WOMEN COMBO F4 | 4 | 5 | 31 | 247 |
| 94BEV-McCrossen 55 WOMEN COMBO F4 | 4 | 5 | 37 | 267 |
| 101PH-Neaton 55 WOMEN COMBO F1 | 4 | 5 | 39 | 251 |
| 116HV-Chien 55 WOMEN COMBO F2 | 4 | 6 | 41 | 302 |
| 123FAC-Baker 55 WOMEN COMBO F3 | 3 | 5 | 26 | 211 |
| 133FAC-Ohgata 55 WOMEN COMBO F4 | 3 | 6 | 29 | 227 |
| 142LT-Oudin 55 WOMEN COMBO F1 | 3 | 6 | 41 | 281 |
| 151VTC-Resko 55 WOMEN COMBO F2 | 3 | 7 | 43 | 298 |
| 162BT-Okka 55 WOMEN COMBO F3 | 2 | 6 | 36 | 257 |
| 174FAC-Stoneback 55 WOMEN COMBO F3 | 2 | 6 | 38 | 248 |
| 184TROY-Karamon 55 WOMEN COMBO F1 | 2 | 7 | 40 | 279 |
| 194CHIP- Bauseweim 55 WOMEN COMBO F2 | 2 | 8 | 46 | 313 |
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 2.48 estimated across 14 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.
| Alison Karamon + Rebecca Uhlenhake | 6–5 | 47% games | +3.6% vs expected |
| Kimberly Venuk + Angela Haines | 1–6 | 39% games | not enough data |
| Michele Shoan + Jacqueline Atchison | 2–3 | 49% games | not enough data |
| Denise Fernandez + Juliette Wareham | 4–1 | 63% games | not enough data |
| Denise Fernandez + Alice Currier | 3–1 | 4 matches | not enough data |
| Shannon O'Brien + Meghan Beck | 2–2 | 4 matches | not enough data |
| Denise Fernandez + Rebecca Uhlenhake | 2–1 | 3 matches | not enough data |
| Jacqueline Atchison + Meghan Beck | 1–2 | 3 matches | 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.