Teams

Net Ninjas

2025 40 & OVER WEEKEND WOMEN · 3.5 Women Saturday

13 players · average NTRP 3.50 / TEXAS

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 →
Schedule1 played
2025-03-08vs Dominion DollsLost 13
L#1 DoublesLeah Schlangen / Abby Holahan vs LeeAnn Penelope Ayarzagoitia / Karla Guerra2-6, 6-3, 0-1
W#1 SinglesCori Brantner vs Raquel Hubbert6-1, 7-5
L#2 DoublesMichele Brink / Gretchen Brown vs Molly Miller / Alina White6-0, 3-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesSarah Naylor / Camille Wright vs Karla Soto / Jeanne Philippus1-6, 6-4, 0-1
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 standings for 3.5 Women Saturday 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 3.23 estimated across 11 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.

3.47
Michele Brink
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.46
Monica Saenz-Vigil
published
3.45
Leah Schlangen
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.42
Cori Brantner
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 3.5
3.29
Noemi Copeland
published
3.28
Andrea Ursha
published 3.5
3.27
Sarah Naylor
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Angelli Angara
published 3.5
Camille Wright
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.24
Gretchen Brown
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.10
Abby Holahan
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
2.92
Mariana Reynoso
published
2.66
Irene Moreno
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.

Leah Schlangen + Michele Brink7258% games+5.7% vs expected
Abby Holahan + Monica Saenz-Vigil6652% games−1.5% vs expected
Leah Schlangen + Gretchen Brown224 matchesnot enough data
Abby Holahan + Michele Brink314 matchesnot enough data
Noemi Copeland + Sarah Naylor123 matchesnot enough data
Noemi Copeland + Gretchen Brown213 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.

Michele Brink
30W–17L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%58%42%
3.47
Monica Saenz-Vigil
27W–12L career · no lines in 2025
<1%62%38%
3.46
Leah Schlangen
28W–19L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%64%36%
3.45
3.5
Cori Brantner
14W–11L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%72%28%
3.42
Noemi Copeland
62W–63L career · no lines in 2025
2%91%7%
3.29
3.5
Andrea Ursha
42W–36L career · no lines in 2025
2%92%6%
3.28
Sarah Naylor
27W–19L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%3%97%
3.27
3.5
Angelli Angara
no matches on record · no lines in 2025
not enough data
3.5
Camille Wright
0W–1L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Gretchen Brown
9W–8L career · 1 line in 2025
5%92%3%
3.24
3.5
Abby Holahan
20W–16L career · 1 line in 2025
24%75%<1%
3.10
Mariana Reynoso
16W–11L career · no lines in 2025
<1%72%27%
2.92
Irene Moreno
6W–6L career · no lines in 2025
12%87%1%
2.66

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.