Teams

SD 3.5WE Mountain View/ Irving

2022 Adult 18 & Over Spring - SD WE Women · SD- Women- WE 3.5

11 players · average NTRP 3.50 / SAN DIEGO

View scouting list →
Schedule8 played
2022-06-19Lost 01
L#1 SinglesAlmira MacIas vs Elizabeth McLean2-6, 2-6
2022-06-05vs SD 3.5WE LJB&TC/ MichaelsenSplit 11
L#1 DoublesMer Chiodo / Amy Rorstad vs Janey Michaelsen / Sarah Suiter0-6, 1-6
W#1 SinglesAlmira MacIas vs Dawn Inglish6-3, 6-3
2022-05-22vs SD WE LLW 3.5 La Jolla TC/ ChangLost 01
L#1 SinglesAlmira MacIas vs Melanie Gilmore6-2, 4-6, 0-1
2022-05-15vs SD 3.5WE Coronado TC/ LeshWon 10
W#2 DoublesAlmira MacIas / Amy Rorstad vs Rita Steel / Caree Lesh2-6, 6-3, 1-0
L#1 DoublesEvelyn Irving / Kerri Reed vs Lilyan Ruiz / Guadalupe Garcia3-6, 4-6
L#2 DoublesAlmira MacIas / Mer Chiodo vs Maria Corbitt / Cynthia Herrera3-6, 2-6
2022-04-24vs SD 3.5WE Balboa Slammers/ EdwardsWon 20
W#1 DoublesKerri Reed / Hillary Emery vs Lisa Hunter / Dinah Mattozzi6-4, 6-1
W#1 SinglesAlmira MacIas vs Leah Christensen3-6, 7-5, 1-0
W#1 DoublesAlmira MacIas / Kris Temple vs Sofia Jimenez / Emma Jablonski6-0, 6-1
W#2 DoublesMer Chiodo / Kerri Reed vs Dana Davalos / Jillian Rodriguez6-2, 6-1
2022-04-03vs SD 3.5WE SDTRC/ MonzonLost 01
L#1 SinglesAmy Rorstad vs Whitney Ginter0-6, 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 standings for SD- Women- WE 3.5 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 3.33 estimated across 9 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.

3.89
Kerri Reed
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.75
3.70
Sarah Eade
published
3.37
Almira MacIas
usually #1 Singles 57%, also #2 Doubles 29% · published 3.5
3.35
Hillary Emery
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.24
Mer Chiodo
published
2.97
Kris Temple
published
2.86
Michele Kelley
published
2.80
Amy Rorstad
usually #1 Singles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3
Evelyn Irving
published 3
Linda Olson
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.

Amy Rorstad + Almira MacIas7351% gamesnot enough data
Kerri Reed + Hillary Emery3448% gamesnot enough data
Michele Kelley + Amy Rorstad303 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.

4
Kerri Reed
159W–128L career · 3 lines in 2022
<1%80%20%
3.89
4
Samantha Polikowski
40W–71L career · no lines in 2022
2%95%3%
3.75
Sarah Eade
5W–1L career · no lines in 2022
6%93%1%
3.70
3.5
Almira MacIas
56W–60L career · 7 lines in 2022
<1%84%16%
3.37
3.5
Hillary Emery
110W–84L career · 1 line in 2022
<1%88%12%
3.35
Mer Chiodo
2W–2L career · no lines in 2022
3%94%2%
3.24
Kris Temple
1W–3L career · no lines in 2022
58%42%<1%
2.97
Michele Kelley
12W–10L career · no lines in 2022
<1%86%14%
2.86
3
Amy Rorstad
82W–150L career · 3 lines in 2022
1%93%6%
2.80
3
Evelyn Irving
1W–1L career · type S · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Linda Olson
1W–0L career · no lines in 2022
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.