Teams

CDTA S TriWMid 5.Nielsen Lund Sun 1 $22

1Summer Tri-level WN · WE

19 players · average NTRP 3.90 / CHICAGO

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
L#1 DoublesMarikko Orr / Hannah Soong vs Colette Gramins / Cyndy Krietsch1-6, 4-6
W#3 DoublesApple Naughton / Nopp Kositt vs Katie Sullivan / Karen Oppenheim6-1, 6-2
W#3 DoublesNopp Kositt / Cheryl Ingram vs Alja Hessami-Maas / Kelly Cosgrove6-2, 5-6
L#1 DoublesSara Desai / Marikko Orr vs Michelle Lee / Emily Doyle4-6, 3-6
2026-06-06Won 10
W#2 DoublesSara Olson / Sara Desai vs Mary Kate Montgomery / Crystal Leighton3-6, 6-4, 1-0
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 · WE
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1CDTA S TriWMid 8.Gnvw Baltazar Tue 7 $215113510120
2CDTA S TriWMid 6.STP Wright Sat 3 $225112614121
3CDTA S TriWMid 1.Score Knutte Sat 11 $205214716140
4CDTA S TriWMid 4.RCLB Ewaldz Sun 4 $224211718149
5CDTA S TriWMid 5.Nielsen Lund Sun 1 $22249920148
6CDTA S TriWMid 2.MTP Byrne Mon 7 $272461227199
7CDTA S TriWMid 3.Tam Landt Sun 1 $222571427211
8CDTA S TriWMid 7.LifeLB(OUT) Kiernan Sat 9 $270631530183

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 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.

4.26
Marian Huh
published 4.5
4.19
Olga Ovnanyan
published 4.5
4.17
Hannah Soong
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
4.16
Jane Girard
published 4.5
3.93
Leigh Keyser
published 4
3.93
Sara Desai
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.80
Joanne Lund
published 4
3.78
Marikko Orr
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.75
Sara Olson
usually #2 Doubles 57%, also #1 Doubles 43% · published
3.65
Hilary Hoye
published 4
3.54
Janine Sheridan
published 4
3.46
Nopp Kositt
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.42
Apple Naughton
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.42
Cheryl Ingram
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.41
Abby Sarnoff
published 3.5
3.33
Agnieszka Fijol
published 3.5
3.31
Jane Moon
published
3.31
Rosemary Swierk
published 3.5
3.25
Rebecca Wadman
published 3.5
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.

Marian Huh + Marikko Orr9264% games+17.4% vs expected
Marikko Orr + Leigh Keyser6171% games+15.3% vs expected
Janine Sheridan + Hilary Hoye8657% games+12.0% vs expected
Hilary Hoye + Leigh Keyser4456% games+10.8% vs expected
Marikko Orr + Sara Desai111054% games+10.6% vs expected
Marian Huh + Leigh Keyser8072% games+10.1% vs expected
Leigh Keyser + Sara Desai12362% games+8.7% vs expected
Jane Girard + Marikko Orr6159% games+7.7% 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.

4.5
Marian Huh
25W–2L career · no lines in 2026
3%92%5%
4.26
4.5
Olga Ovnanyan
54W–31L career · no lines in 2026
8%90%1%
4.19
4.5
Hannah Soong
1W–6L career · type S · 1 line in 2026
12%88%1%
4.17
4.5
Jane Girard
112W–55L career · no lines in 2026
13%87%1%
4.16
4
Leigh Keyser
98W–48L career · type A · no lines in 2026
<1%69%31%
3.93
Sara Desai
55W–34L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%<1%>99%
3.93
4
Joanne Lund
172W–88L career · no lines in 2026
2%91%7%
3.80
Marikko Orr
45W–29L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%2%98%
3.78
Sara Olson
131W–57L career · 7 lines in 2026
0%<1%>99%
3.75
4
Hilary Hoye
82W–55L career · no lines in 2026
14%85%1%
3.65
4
Janine Sheridan
65W–64L career · no lines in 2026
38%62%<1%
3.54
3.5
Nopp Kositt
25W–18L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%62%38%
3.46
3.5
Apple Naughton
225W–194L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%71%28%
3.42
3.5
Cheryl Ingram
107W–67L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%72%28%
3.42
3.5
Abby Sarnoff
52W–45L career · no lines in 2026
<1%74%26%
3.41
3.5
Agnieszka Fijol
128W–115L career · no lines in 2026
1%87%12%
3.33
Jane Moon
28W–18L career · no lines in 2026
1%90%8%
3.31
3.5
Rosemary Swierk
70W–29L career · no lines in 2026
1%90%8%
3.31
3.5
Rebecca Wadman
33W–20L career · no lines in 2026
4%93%4%
3.25

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.