3HV-WATSON JAN TRI-LEVEL 35 30 25 Women SEM F1
2024 zSEM TRI-LEVEL - WINTER · 2024 Tri-Level January 3.5 3.0 2.5 Women SEM
18 players · average NTRP 3.38 / S.E. MICHIGAN
No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.
Schedule8 played
i
Flight standings13 teams · 2024 Tri-Level January 3.5 3.0 2.5 Women SEM
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14SCWB-CHAN JAN TRI-LEVEL 35 30 25 Women SEM F3 | 8 | 1 | 18 | 183 |
| 23HV-WATSON JAN TRI-LEVEL 35 30 25 Women SEM F1 | 7 | 1 | 13 | 154 |
| 36TRAVIS-SKOCHELAK JAN TRI-LEVEL 353025 W SEM F1 | 7 | 1 | 24 | 219 |
| 44EAST-THOMAS JAN TRI-LEVEL 35 30 25 Women SEM F2 | 6 | 3 | 22 | 193 |
| 53WESS-BROWN JAN TRI-LEVEL 35 30 25 Women SEM F2 | 6 | 3 | 30 | 242 |
| 62LIFE-MARV-NELS JAN TRI-LEVEL 35 30 25 W SEM F2 | 5 | 4 | 26 | 207 |
| 71WESS-REAMER JAN TRI-LEVEL 35 30 25 Women SEM F3 | 5 | 4 | 28 | 219 |
| 84HV-HUME JAN TRI-LEVEL 35 30 25 Women SEM F1 | 3 | 5 | 30 | 221 |
| 91LIB-MARLEY JAN TRI-LEVEL 35 30 25 Women SEM F1 | 3 | 5 | 33 | 234 |
| 102WESS-WEDEMEYER JAN TRI-LEVEL 35 30 25 Women SEM F | 3 | 6 | 37 | 267 |
| 113FAC-BROOKS JAN TRI-LEVEL 35 30 25 Women SEM F3 | 2 | 7 | 41 | 267 |
| 121TROY-ANDERSON JAN TRI-LEVEL 35 30 25 Women SEM F2 | 1 | 8 | 45 | 298 |
| 132CHIP-LARTIGUE JAN TRI-LEVEL 35 30 25 Women SEM F1 | 0 | 8 | 40 | 258 |
Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.
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 3.12 estimated across 15 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.
Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.
| Josie Taylor + Amy Gillett | 5–1 | 67% games | +10.6% vs expected |
| Christine Lammers + Sara Chang | 2–3 | 57% games | +9.6% vs expected |
| Nina Sober + Amy Gillett | 6–3 | 64% games | +7.1% vs expected |
| Olga Bikhleyzer + Josie Taylor | 5–0 | 73% games | +5.1% vs expected |
| SUMMER CUFF + Kim Kanzawa | 2–3 | 49% games | +4.9% vs expected |
| Rebecca Washington + Kim Kanzawa | 4–4 | 52% games | +3.3% vs expected |
| Nina Sober + Josie Taylor | 9–4 | 61% games | +0.7% vs expected |
| Julie Ewy + Heather Cooper | 26–28 | 49% games | −1.7% vs expected |
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.
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.