Teams

NITA E 40W18d Tam (Wright)

2024 NITA1 ESL Adult 18 & Over · NITA ESL 18 & Over 4.0 Women

17 players · average NTRP 4.07 / NORTHERN ILLINOIS

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 →
Schedule4 played
2023-11-19Won 10
W#2 DoublesHuan Chang / Susan Klumpner vs N/A6-0, 6-0
2023-10-24vs NITA E 40W18h Oak Lawn (Gaynor)Won 30
W#1 DoublesShannon Pirron / Karen Light vs Jennifer Gaynor / Catherine Wasylenko6-4, 6-2
W#2 DoublesAllison Goldberg / Danielle Balzano vs Mary Richardson-Webb / Lisa Franco6-0, 6-0
W#3 DoublesSophia Koliatsis / Claudia Moscoso-Cordero vs Amy Tyree / Lynn Zolfo6-0, 6-1
2023-09-30vs NITA E 40W18b Norris (Buxton)Split 22
W#1 DoublesCourtney Tornow / Eileen Lee vs MEREDITH BETTCHER / Angie Ulie6-3, 7-6
L#1 SinglesSophia Koliatsis vs Ayako Butolph2-6, 1-6
W#2 DoublesMartha Davis / Shannon Pirron vs Vicki Mitchell / Cindy Sullivan6-3, 6-4
L#3 DoublesDanielle Balzano / Susan Klumpner vs Renee Buxton / Marilyn Tansey1-6, 3-6
2023-09-23vs NITA E 40W18a Score (Knutte)Split 22
W#1 DoublesMartha Davis / Courtney Tornow vs Cindy Bielik / Alicja Kujalowicz2-6, 6-3, 1-0
L#1 SinglesRebecca Daly vs Meghan Jones2-6, 6-3, 1-0
W#2 DoublesShannon Pirron / Huan Chang vs Laurie Knutte / Rebecca Bosack4-6, 6-4, 1-0
L#3 DoublesLaura Purcell / Danielle Balzano vs Marinne Leonard / Suzi Winters2-6, 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 standings8 teams · NITA ESL 18 & Over 4.0 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1NITA E 40W18e Oak Brook (Lukas)7023515145
2NITA E 40W18a Score (Knutte)6120820171
3NITA E 40W18b Norris (Buxton)52171126201
4NITA E 40W18g Heritage (Jurczyk/Campanelli)3315919157
5NITA E 40W18c Naperville (Madura)34141430227
6NITA E 40W18d Tam (Wright)24121226183
7NITA E 40W18f Rush Copley (Stine)1652347283
8NITA E 40W18h Oak Lawn (Gaynor)0722652329

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 3.72 estimated across 13 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.

3.98
Huan Chang
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.88
Allison Goldberg
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.86
Susan Klumpner
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
3.85
Danielle Balzano
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.79
Alison Donnelly
published 4.5
Courtney Tornow
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.73
Sophia Koliatsis
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.70
Ashley Boduch
published 4
3.69
Claudia Moscoso-Cordero
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.67
Laura Purcell
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.60
Shannon Pirron
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
3.55
Martha Davis
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
3.55
Eileen Lee
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.52
Rebecca Daly
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
Karen Light
published
Kayla Garcia
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.

Martha Davis + Allison Goldberg9458% games+13.3% vs expected
Susan Klumpner + Allison Goldberg6260% games+9.6% vs expected
Martha Davis + Rebecca Daly7260% games+5.6% vs expected
Karen Light + Shannon Pirron4354% games+5.2% vs expected
Danielle Balzano + Martha Davis8357% games+2.1% vs expected
Martha Davis + Courtney Tornow6551% games−3.2% vs expected
Danielle Balzano + Allison Goldberg134 matchesnot enough data
Huan Chang + Rebecca Daly303 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.

Huan Chang
178W–130L career · 1 line in 2024
<1%57%43%
3.98
4
Allison Goldberg
126W–78L career · 1 line in 2024
<1%80%19%
3.88
Susan Klumpner
117W–94L career · 2 lines in 2024
1%84%16%
3.86
4
Danielle Balzano
131W–51L career · 3 lines in 2024
1%85%14%
3.85
4.5
Alison Donnelly
110W–90L career · no lines in 2024
93%7%<1%
3.79
4
Courtney Tornow
49W–20L career · 2 lines in 2024
not enough data
4
Sophia Koliatsis
334W–192L career · 2 lines in 2024
5%92%3%
3.73
4
Ashley Boduch
51W–48L career · no lines in 2024
8%90%1%
3.70
4
Claudia Moscoso-Cordero
48W–45L career · 1 line in 2024
9%90%1%
3.69
Laura Purcell
152W–152L career · 1 line in 2024
11%88%1%
3.67
Shannon Pirron
56W–29L career · 3 lines in 2024
25%75%<1%
3.60
Martha Davis
321W–153L career · 2 lines in 2024
35%65%<1%
3.55
Eileen Lee
126W–112L career · 1 line in 2024
<1%37%63%
3.55
Rebecca Daly
121W–136L career · 1 line in 2024
43%56%<1%
3.52
Fra Angelica Farinas- Wright
62W–25L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
Karen Light
6W–4L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
Kayla Garcia
9W–3L career · no lines in 2024
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.