Teams

EW-YTC-Brown

2024 Adult 40 & Over · 2.5 WOMEN

7 players · average NTRP 3.00 / EASTERN WASHINGTON

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2024-06-01vs EW-WCCP-SchnurmanWon 30
W#1 DoublesMolly Neal / Andrea Jedel vs Debi Herbst / Sara Hannigan6-0, 6-2
W#1 SinglesJennifer Terami vs Piper Peterson6-0, 6-1
W#2 DoublesErika Mullins / Rose Longoria vs Jennifer Marion / Anne Schnurman6-4, 6-2
2024-06-01vs EW-WCCP-SchnurmanWon 30
W#1 DoublesJennifer Terami / Lesley Brown vs Alissa Long / Piper Peterson6-1, 6-0
W#1 SinglesErika Mullins vs Sara Hannigan6-1, 6-0
W#2 DoublesMolly Neal / Andrea Jedel vs Anne Schnurman / Jennifer Marion6-3, 6-1
2024-05-31vs EW-WCCP-SchnurmanWon 30
W#1 DoublesMolly Neal / Erika Mullins vs Anne Schnurman / Sara Hannigan6-1, 6-0
W#1 SinglesJennifer Terami vs Brita Frost6-0, 6-3
W#2 DoublesRose Longoria / Lesley Brown vs Alissa Long / Piper Peterson6-2, 6-3
2024-05-31vs EW-WCCP-SchnurmanWon 20
W#1 DoublesJennifer Terami / Lesley Brown vs Sara Hannigan / Piper Peterson6-2, 6-0
W#2 DoublesErika Mullins / Andrea Jedel vs Alissa Long / Debi Herbst6-1, 6-1
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 standings2 teams · 2.5 WOMEN
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1EW-YTC-Brown40120031
2EW-WCCP-Schnurman0401224144

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 2.54 estimated across 5 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.

2.94
Jennifer Terami
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 3
Andrea Jedel
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.58
Lesley Brown
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.50
Rose Longoria
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.43
Erika Mullins
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 3
2.22
Martha Marchand
published
Molly Neal
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.

Lesley Brown + Jennifer Terami4174% games+20.5% vs expected
Erika Mullins + Andrea Jedel3255% games+9.5% vs expected
Lesley Brown + Rose Longoria91441% games+1.2% vs expected
Erika Mullins + Rose Longoria224 matchesnot enough data
Erika Mullins + Martha Marchand314 matchesnot enough data
Erika Mullins + Jennifer Terami123 matchesnot enough data
Rose Longoria + Jennifer Terami123 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
Jennifer Terami
43W–48L career · 4 lines in 2024
<1%65%34%
2.94
3
Andrea Jedel
5W–4L career · 3 lines in 2024
not enough data
3
Lesley Brown
23W–38L career · 3 lines in 2024
29%71%<1%
2.58
3
Rose Longoria
26W–36L career · 2 lines in 2024
49%51%<1%
2.50
3
Erika Mullins
26W–56L career · 4 lines in 2024
69%31%<1%
2.43
Martha Marchand
9W–23L career · no lines in 2024
0%98%2%
2.22
Molly Neal
2W–5L 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.