Teams

OC:Jackson

2023 VT Tri-Level Women · 3.5 Women

6 players · average NTRP 3.50 / VERMONT

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2023-11-19vs ESB:Miss Hits:StrausserLost 01
L#1 DoublesRebecca Foulk / Rosa Affleck vs Deborah Shaw / Margaret Limoge4-6, 1-6
2023-11-04vs ESB:Game Changers:RobertsWon 10
W#1 DoublesRebecca Foulk / Abby Nolan vs Jeanne Blackmore / Chaska Richardson6-3, 3-6, 1-0
2023-10-29vs TRS:Fresh, hot slices:SchulzeWon 10
W#1 DoublesJennifer Connors / Rosa Affleck vs Vivianne Ivanier / Pamela Clapp2-6, 6-1, 1-0
2023-10-21vs EE:Essex Slicers:Morgan-YatzorWon 10
W#1 DoublesJudy Wild / Judith Jackson vs Natalie Neuert / Linda Morgan-Yatzor6-2, 6-3
2023-10-15vs MIT:MarshallLost 01
L#1 DoublesJennifer Connors / Rebecca Foulk vs Martha Davis / Sara Marshall7-5, 5-7, 0-1
2023-10-15vs EE:FonsecaLost 01
L#1 DoublesAbby Nolan / Judy Wild vs Stephanie Lacayo / Marilee Willey2-6, 3-6
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 standings7 teams · 3.5 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1ESB:Miss Hits:Strausser5151447
2ESB:Game Changers:Roberts4242445
3EE:Fonseca4242546
4OC:Jackson3333858
5TRS:Fresh, hot slices:Schulze3333860
6EE:Essex Slicers:Morgan-Yatzor15151061
7MIT:Marshall15151173

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.

3.31
Rosa Affleck
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.28
Judy Wild
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.21
Abby Nolan
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.19
Jennifer Connors
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Judith Jackson
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Rebecca Foulk
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.

Abby Nolan + Rosa Affleck8753% games+0.1% vs expected
Judith Jackson + Rosa Affleck4650% games−0.2% vs expected
Judith Jackson + Rebecca Foulk8554% gamesnot enough data
Abby Nolan + Rebecca Foulk8358% gamesnot enough data
Jennifer Connors + Rosa Affleck5351% gamesnot enough data
Rosa Affleck + Rebecca Foulk4150% gamesnot enough data
Judith Jackson + Jennifer Connors314 matchesnot enough data
Judy Wild + Rosa Affleck134 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.

Rosa Affleck
45W–37L career · 2 lines in 2023
1%92%7%
3.31
Judy Wild
31W–29L career · 2 lines in 2023
2%94%5%
3.28
3.5
Abby Nolan
31W–26L career · 2 lines in 2023
5%94%1%
3.21
Jennifer Connors
47W–80L career · 2 lines in 2023
8%92%1%
3.19
Judith Jackson
27W–28L career · 1 line in 2023
not enough data
Rebecca Foulk
41W–34L career · 3 lines in 2023
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.