← Teams

Mystery Team 6.0

2022 Mixed 18 & Over · 6.0

6 players · average NTRP 3.20 / ALASKA

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2022-02-11Lost 0–3
L#1 DoublesBarbara Jacobs / Antonio Monterrosa vs Cynthia Henie / Richard Clendaniel5-7, 3-6
L#2 DoublesEmily Elison / Ed Ulman vs Song Bliss / John Kim3-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesSandra Denton / John Doe vs Lori Kaltenbach / Douglas Bliss0-6, 0-6
2022-02-04Lost 1–2
L#1 DoublesBarbara Jacobs / Antonio Monterrosa vs Richard Clendaniel / Cynthia Henie4-6, 5-7
L#2 DoublesJohn Doe / Emily Elison vs Lori Kaltenbach / John Kim6-7, 3-6
W#3 DoublesEd Ulman / Sandra Denton vs N/A6-0, 6-0
2022-01-28vs The Fun CrewLost 0–2
L#1 DoublesAntonio Monterrosa / Barbara Jacobs vs Susan Brunner / John Kim0-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesDana Griffin / John Doe vs Allison Burand / Richard Clendaniel2-6, 0-6
2022-01-21Lost 0–2
L#1 DoublesJohn Doe / Dana Griffin vs Susan Brunner / Richard Clendaniel2-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesBarbara Jacobs / Antonio Monterrosa vs Douglas Bliss / Lori Kaltenbach6-2, 1-6, 0-1
2022-01-14vs The Fun CrewLost 1–2
L#1 DoublesBarbara Jacobs / Antonio Monterrosa vs Susan Brunner / John Kim3-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesEd Ulman / Sandra Denton vs Allison Burand / Richard Clendaniel0-6, 1-6
W#3 DoublesEmily Elison / John Doe vs N/A6-0, 6-0
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 standings2 teams · 6.0
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1The Fun Crew50123789
2Mystery Team 6.00521326156

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 2.98 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.

3.59
Emily Elison
usually #3 Doubles 44%, also #2 Doubles 44% · published 4
3.06
Dana Griffin
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
2.93
Antonio Monterrosa
usually #1 Doubles 57%, also #3 Doubles 29% · published 3
—
Barbara Jacobs
usually #1 Doubles 56%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.33
Ed Ulman
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 2.5
—
Sandra Denton
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · 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.

Barbara Jacobs + Antonio Monterrosa0–536% gamesnot 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
Emily Elison
172W–110L career · 9 lines in 2022
25%75%<1%
3.59
3.5
Dana Griffin
111W–86L career · 8 lines in 2022
33%67%<1%
3.06
3
Antonio Monterrosa
31W–14L career · type S · 7 lines in 2022
<1%71%29%
2.93
3
Barbara Jacobs
21W–47L career · 9 lines in 2022
not enough data
—
2.5
Ed Ulman
17W–52L career · type M · 3 lines in 2022
0%90%10%
2.33
—
Sandra Denton
3W–14L career · 2 lines in 2022
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.