Teams

CDTA S 18&OW4.0 7.McFetridge Lund Sun 4 $20

CDTA 1Summer Adult 18 & Over · CDTA 18 & Over W 4.0 Summer

23 players · average NTRP 3.88 / CHICAGO

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 →
Schedule7 played
W#1 DoublesAnna Gjerlow / Andrea Kerwin vs Mary Cooper / Heather Vishnubhakat6-2, 6-4
W#1 SinglesMary Pat Barbarie vs Monique Melnick6-3, 4-6, 1-0
L#2 DoublesJendy Barnes / Gaelle Gravot vs Dani Zepeda / Kristen Coy4-6, 3-5
L#2 SinglesMonika Nalepa vs Iva Gregorova1-6, 0-6
W#3 DoublesLaura Purcell / Alja Hessami-Maas vs Julie Schwan / Narissa Breger7-6, 3-1
W#1 DoublesAnne Ryan / Dawn Pollack vs Caroline Holyk / Carlie Frisch6-3, 6-0
W#1 SinglesMonika Nalepa vs Shirley Martin6-0, 6-0
L#2 DoublesAna Chang / Andrea Kerwin vs Sarah Blankenbaker / Christine Munteanu3-6, 3-5
L#3 DoublesSavanna Rhodes / Alja Hessami-Maas vs Emma Moon / Linda Wolf3-6, 1-6
W#1 DoublesIsabel Quinones / Ana Chang vs Dawn Baumann / Eileen Lee2-6, 7-5, 1-0
L#1 SinglesAlja Hessami-Maas vs Erin Alvarez1-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesBonny Tovar / Agnieszka Fijol vs Silvia Kusaka / Ashley Kaufman3-6, 6-4, 0-1
L#2 SinglesSavanna Rhodes vs Rebecca Daly0-6, 0-6
W#3 DoublesHilary Fife / Ashley Boduch vs Maria Lobo-Corey / Teodora Varcheva6-7, 2-1, 1-0
W#1 DoublesAna Chang / Emily Doyle vs Kitty Swanson / Erica Eisner6-4, 6-4
W#1 SinglesHaina Shin vs Svetlana Petrova4-6, 4-0, 1-0
W#2 SinglesAlja Hessami-Maas vs Erica Lynch6-4, 6-0
W#3 DoublesIsabel Quinones / Emily Lund vs Barbara Chmieleski / Missy Frank6-7, 3-2
W#1 DoublesEmily Doyle / Ana Chang vs Anne Dwyer / Stephanie Remelius6-2, 6-3
W#1 SinglesIsabel Quinones vs KAREN MAJERCZAK7-5, 1-6, 1-0
L#2 DoublesAshley Boduch / Jennifer Koo vs Shannon Pirron / Karen Light3-6, 4-6
L#2 SinglesAlja Hessami-Maas vs Shelley Szela3-6, 6-5
L#3 DoublesDawn Pollack / Laura Purcell vs Mary Etherington / Stacey Tomczak2-6, 2-6
W#1 DoublesEmily Doyle / Ana Chang vs Courtney Conway / Jennifer Nemec6-1, 6-2
L#1 SinglesMary Pat Barbarie vs Tracy Merrell4-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesLaura Purcell / Gaelle Gravot vs Angela Tsang / Johanna Raimond2-6, 3-4
W#2 SinglesAndrea Kerwin vs Anne-Laure Provo7-6, 4-3
W#3 DoublesAlja Hessami-Maas / Monika Nalepa vs Cheryl Jasinski / Kelly Castriotta6-3, 2-5, 1-0
L#1 DoublesEmily Doyle / Ana Chang vs Allison Goldberg / Melissa Schopin5-7, 5-4, 0-1
W#1 SinglesHaina Shin vs Claudia Moscoso-Cordero6-2, 5-3
L#2 SinglesAlja Hessami-Maas vs Grace Kuhrt0-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesSavanna Rhodes / Dawn Pollack vs Huan Chang / Patricia Bustamante5-7, 2-4
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 · CDTA 18 & Over W 4.0 Summer
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1CDTA S 18&OW4.0 4.Tam Corey Mon 7 $2270251025239
2CDTA S 18&OW4.0 6.Tam Wright Fri 7:30 $2261251023215
3CDTA S 18&OW4.0 3.Centennial Nemec Thur 7 $2034201534283
4CDTA S 18&OW4.0 2.MT Bann Cooper Tue 6:30 $2534181739289
5CDTA S 18&OW4.0 5.Glenbrook Gray Tue 6:30 $2534152041288
6CDTA S 18&OW4.0 7.McFetridge Lund Sun 4 $2034171842321
7CDTA S 18&OW4.0 8.Forest View Chmieleski Thur 7 $2325132248325
8CDTA S 18&OW4.0 1.McFetridge Newson Sat 7 $201672858376

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 3.69 estimated across 17 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.

4.24
Emily Doyle
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
4.04
Ana Chang
usually #1 Doubles 83%, also #2 Doubles 17% · published 4
3.94
Monika Nalepa
usually #2 Singles 33%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.94
Haina Shin
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 4
3.80
3.70
Ashley Boduch
usually #3 Doubles 80%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published 4
3.68
Andrea Kerwin
usually #2 Singles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.68
Dawn Pollack
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.67
Laura Purcell
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.66
Meghan Ahlgrim
published
3.62
Bonny Tovar
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.61
Hilary Fife
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.50
Anna Gjerlow
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.48
Gaelle Gravot
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.44
Emily Lund
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published
3.42
Alja Hessami-Maas
usually #2 Singles 43%, also #3 Doubles 43% · published 3.5
3.33
Agnieszka Fijol
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
Anne Ryan
published 3.5
Isabel Quinones
usually #2 Singles 33%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
Jendy Barnes
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Jennifer Koo
published
Mary Pat Barbarie
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
Savanna Rhodes
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Singles 33% · 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.

Alja Hessami-Maas + Dawn Pollack1835% games+15.9% vs expected
Agnieszka Fijol + Emily Lund7065% games+13.3% vs expected
Alja Hessami-Maas + Emily Lund23662% games+9.8% vs expected
Ana Chang + Emily Doyle24963% games+6.9% vs expected
Haina Shin + Ana Chang6359% games+3.0% vs expected
Alja Hessami-Maas + Laura Purcell345945% games+2.7% vs expected
Jendy Barnes + Angela Anglin Weathers3449% games+2.5% vs expected
Jennifer Koo + Laura Purcell3349% games+1.4% vs expected
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.

Emily Doyle
132W–64L career · 4 lines in 2024
<1%5%95%
4.24
4
Ana Chang
210W–115L career · 6 lines in 2024
<1%40%60%
4.04
4
Monika Nalepa
76W–59L career · 6 lines in 2024
<1%67%33%
3.94
4
Haina Shin
200W–104L career · 2 lines in 2024
<1%68%32%
3.94
4
Angela Anglin Weathers
130W–94L career · no lines in 2024
2%91%7%
3.80
4
Ashley Boduch
51W–48L career · 5 lines in 2024
8%90%1%
3.70
4
Andrea Kerwin
24W–20L career · 3 lines in 2024
10%89%1%
3.68
4
Dawn Pollack
76W–98L career · 3 lines in 2024
10%89%1%
3.68
Laura Purcell
152W–152L career · 3 lines in 2024
11%88%1%
3.67
Meghan Ahlgrim
17W–12L career · no lines in 2024
<1%13%87%
3.66
4
Bonny Tovar
55W–32L career · 3 lines in 2024
20%80%<1%
3.62
4
Hilary Fife
102W–65L career · 1 line in 2024
21%79%<1%
3.61
4
Anna Gjerlow
20W–27L career · 1 line in 2024
51%49%<1%
3.50
Gaelle Gravot
33W–38L career · 2 lines in 2024
56%44%<1%
3.48
Emily Lund
241W–111L career · 4 lines in 2024
<1%<1%>99%
3.44
3.5
Alja Hessami-Maas
212W–213L career · 7 lines in 2024
<1%71%29%
3.42
3.5
Agnieszka Fijol
128W–115L career · 6 lines in 2024
1%87%12%
3.33
3.5
Anne Ryan
22W–27L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
Isabel Quinones
26W–40L career · 6 lines in 2024
not enough data
Jendy Barnes
39W–40L career · 1 line in 2024
not enough data
Jennifer Koo
30W–25L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
Mary Pat Barbarie
18W–9L career · 2 lines in 2024
not enough data
Savanna Rhodes
21W–37L career · 3 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.