1FAC-JAM 40NW TU 18&O SEM F2
2025 bSEM ADULT 18 & OVER NIGHT WOMEN · 4.0 WOMEN TUES PM SEM
21 players · average NTRP 3.85 / 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 standings14 teams · 4.0 WOMEN TUES PM SEM
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13LIB-LEVASSEUR 40NW TU 18&O SEM F3 | 9 | 0 | 29 | 305 |
| 25BCC-STRACHAN 40NW TU 18&O SEM F1 | 9 | 1 | 34 | 341 |
| 34PEACH-DEGUZMAN 40NW TU 18&O SEM F2 | 7 | 2 | 39 | 363 |
| 46BT-EBERT 40NW TU 18&O SEM F1 | 6 | 4 | 47 | 410 |
| 52BRC-CLEARY 40NW TU 18&O SEM F1 | 6 | 4 | 53 | 447 |
| 61FAC-JAM 40NW TU 18&O SEM F2 | 5 | 4 | 49 | 407 |
| 73LIFE-SZYMANSKI 40NW TU 18&O SEM F2 | 5 | 4 | 54 | 414 |
| 84TROY-LIVINGSTON 40NW TU 18&O SEM F1 | 5 | 5 | 58 | 464 |
| 93FAC-STEINER 40NW TU 18&O SEM F1 | 4 | 6 | 57 | 461 |
| 104HV-WANG 40NW TU 18&O SEM F3 | 3 | 6 | 52 | 413 |
| 112CHIP-RUSCHE 40NW TU 18&O SEM F3 | 3 | 6 | 53 | 424 |
| 121AAREC-HURON-KAUFMAN 40NW TU 18&O SEM F3 | 3 | 6 | 71 | 477 |
| 132CT4-HELD 40NW TU 18&O SEM F2 | 1 | 8 | 69 | 462 |
| 141DCD-SIERSMA 40NW TU 18&O SEM F1 | 0 | 10 | 84 | 565 |
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 3.60 estimated across 19 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.
| Erin Robinson + Heather Enright | 19–4 | 65% games | +14.8% vs expected |
| Kelly Dipilla + Hilary Maly | 8–5 | 55% games | +3.6% vs expected |
| Jaimie Provagna + Kelly Dipilla | 34–9 | 60% games | +2.5% vs expected |
| Luminita Varos + Nisha Jam | 22–8 | 59% games | +1.8% vs expected |
| Erin Robinson + Lora Kazanjian | 3–3 | 51% games | +0.5% vs expected |
| Rebecca Tanguay + Nisha Jam | 3–3 | 52% games | +0.1% vs expected |
| Erin Robinson + Piper Copeland | 3–4 | 45% games | −5.5% vs expected |
| Rebecca Tanguay + Lora Kazanjian | 2–6 | 35% games | −9.0% vs expected |
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.