Teams

ACOPI:CapitalPlayers:Moss

2022 ME Fall Tri-Level · 3.5 Women

4 players · average NTRP 3.50 / MAINE

View scouting list →
Schedule9 played
2022-12-03vs Apex:MainelyAces:PickeringLost 01
L#1 DoublesKathleen Tarbuck / Barbara Moss vs Martha Elbaum / Stephanie Glanville3-6, 4-6
2022-12-03Lost 01
L#1 DoublesBarbara Moss / Kathleen Tarbuck vs Kathryn Brown / Kathy Brown6-2, 4-6, 0-1
2022-11-13vs Apex:MainelyAces:PickeringLost 01
L#1 DoublesKathleen Tarbuck / Barbara Moss vs Karen Eberhardt / Meg Pickering3-6, 3-6
2022-11-13vs Apex:NetAssets:DoyleWon 10
W#1 DoublesBarbara Moss / Kathleen Tarbuck vs Diana Doyle / Jill Craft6-4, 6-0
2022-11-05Lost 01
L#1 DoublesBarbara Moss / Kathleen Tarbuck vs Kathryn Brown / Kathy Brown4-6, 6-7
2022-11-04vs Apex:MainelyAces:PickeringLost 01
L#1 DoublesKathleen Tarbuck / Barbara Moss vs Karen Eberhardt / Martha Elbaum6-3, 3-6, 0-1
2022-10-16vs Apex:NetAssets:DoyleWon 10
W#1 DoublesRegina Coppens / Karen Boston vs Diana Doyle / Danielle Rowland6-3, 6-3
2022-10-16vs Apex:DoubleTrouble:BrownWon 10
W#1 DoublesRegina Coppens / Karen Boston vs Kathy Brown / Sarah Holland6-2, 6-3
2022-10-01vs Apex:NetAssets:DoyleLost 01
L#1 DoublesKaren Boston / Regina Coppens vs Diana Doyle / Jill Craft6-0, 4-6, 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 standings8 teams · 3.5 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Apex:MainelyAces:Pickering9090154
2MRC:TheSmash:Arau7171340
3WOOD:BlurredLines:Fendler6262561
4Apex:DoubleTrouble:Brown5454984
5ACOPI:CapitalPlayers:Moss36361278
6Apex:TBD:Green25251175
7Apex:NetAssets:Doyle181817107
8Apex:SmashQueens:Morong181817106

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 3.25 estimated across 4 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.

3.38
Barbara Moss
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.32
Karen Boston
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.20
Kathleen Tarbuck
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.09
Regina Coppens
usually #1 Doubles 100% · 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.

Barbara Moss + Kathleen Tarbuck2947% games+2.1% vs expected
Karen Boston + Kathleen Tarbuck1540% games−11.4% vs expected
Regina Coppens + Karen Boston224 matchesnot enough data
Barbara Moss + Karen Boston044 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.

3.5
Barbara Moss
49W–42L career · 6 lines in 2022
<1%82%17%
3.38
Karen Boston
42W–39L career · 3 lines in 2022
1%91%8%
3.32
Kathleen Tarbuck
23W–36L career · 6 lines in 2022
6%93%1%
3.20
Regina Coppens
4W–12L career · 3 lines in 2022
23%76%<1%
3.09

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.