Teams

La.Redmond18T

2024 Capital Tri-Level 18 & Over · 3.0-3.5-4.0 Women

10 players · average NTRP 3.86 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2024-07-27vs Li.Kempf18TWon 10
W#3 DoublesLiz Arcos / Amy Hobbs vs Emily Larson / Griffin Lamb4-6, 7-6, 1-0
2024-07-13vs Sk.Poole18TLost 01
L#2 DoublesLiz Arcos / Hannah Boghosian vs Amanda Lindsay / Tiffany Barrier5-7, 1-6
2024-06-15vs Pa.Hankerson18TWon 10
W#3 DoublesLauren Redmond / Liz Arcos vs Taqiyya Yasin / Michelle Mills6-1, 6-1
2024-06-01vs Me.Everitt18T3.0Won 10
W#3 DoublesLiz Arcos / Amy Hobbs vs Lisa Austin / Heather Hofmann6-1, 6-1
2024-05-25vs Bl.Leippe18T3.0Won 10
W#3 DoublesSusan Starnes / Liz Arcos vs Wendy Sielaty / Bladen Leippe6-0, 6-4
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 standings for 3.0-3.5-4.0 Women 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 3.57 estimated across 10 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.

4.06
Meryl Golder
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 4
3.87
Leigh Barter
usually #3 Doubles 63%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 4
3.81
Jeme Avent
usually #1 Doubles 86%, also #2 Doubles 14% · published 4
3.81
Jenna Raynor
published
3.80
Hannah Boghosian
published 4
3.71
Erin Conigliaro
usually #1 Doubles 71%, also #2 Doubles 29% · published 4
3.54
Amy Hobbs
published 3.5
3.31
Liz Arcos
usually #3 Doubles 80%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published 3.5
3.26
Lauren Redmond
published
2.57
Susan Starnes
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.

Meryl Golder + Leigh Barter21463% games+7.1% vs expected
Liz Arcos + Amy Hobbs6359% games−0.5% vs expected
Meryl Golder + Jeme Avent111151% games−6.5% vs expected
Jeme Avent + Leigh Barter4452% games−7.6% vs expected
Meryl Golder + Erin Conigliaro224 matchesnot enough data
Erin Conigliaro + Liz Arcos404 matchesnot enough data
Erin Conigliaro + Jeme Avent224 matchesnot enough data
Lauren Redmond + Amy Hobbs314 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
Meryl Golder
141W–76L career · 8 lines in 2024
<1%33%67%
4.06
4
Leigh Barter
186W–64L career · 8 lines in 2024
<1%85%15%
3.87
4
Jeme Avent
297W–148L career · 7 lines in 2024
1%92%7%
3.81
Jenna Raynor
13W–5L career · no lines in 2024
1%92%7%
3.81
4
Hannah Boghosian
22W–15L career · no lines in 2024
1%92%7%
3.80
4
Erin Conigliaro
175W–128L career · 7 lines in 2024
5%93%1%
3.71
3.5
Amy Hobbs
55W–19L career · no lines in 2024
<1%38%62%
3.54
3.5
Liz Arcos
193W–124L career · 5 lines in 2024
1%92%7%
3.31
Lauren Redmond
31W–20L career · no lines in 2024
2%94%3%
3.26
Susan Starnes
12W–8L career · no lines in 2024
31%69%<1%
2.57

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.