Teams

Queen City Chrome

2025 OH OV SUMMER Day A18&O W Cincinnati · 2025 Summer Day A18&O 4.0 WOMEN Cincinnati

20 players · average NTRP 4.00 / OHIO VALLEY

No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.

View scouting list →

Flight standings for 2025 Summer Day A18&O 4.0 WOMEN Cincinnati 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 3.81 estimated across 18 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
Lisa Ahrens
published
3.94
Sharon Barns
published
3.93
Jessica Spry
published
3.89
Leigh Ann Schinaman
published
3.88
MacKenzie Hammel
published
3.86
Stephanie Besl
published
3.85
Stephanie Moler
published
3.82
Judy Dennis
published
3.81
Lynda Baumann
published
3.79
3.79
Maureen Ernst
published
3.78
Perin Goodman
published
3.76
Lauren Keith
published
Amy Ellis
published 4
3.74
Amy Schmitt
published 4
3.73
Susan Eberlein
published
3.73
Amanda Ehme
published 4
3.64
Paula Danis
published
3.59
Heather Tash
published 4
Jeanne Miller
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.

Amy Schmitt + Leigh Ann Schinaman7456% games+2.8% vs expected
Lauren Keith + Paula Danis11658% games−0.4% vs expected
Amy Schmitt + Lauren Keith7356% games−6.9% vs expected
Lisa Ahrens + Maureen Ernst5259% gamesnot enough data
Stephanie Besl + Paula Danis5071% gamesnot enough data
Amy Schmitt + Heather Tash2346% gamesnot enough data
Judy Dennis + Chrissy Buckingham404 matchesnot enough data
Stephanie Moler + Susan Eberlein404 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.

Lisa Ahrens
44W–14L career · no lines in 2025
<1%32%68%
4.06
Sharon Barns
53W–19L career · no lines in 2025
<1%68%32%
3.94
Jessica Spry
7W–9L career · no lines in 2025
<1%71%29%
3.93
Leigh Ann Schinaman
47W–25L career · no lines in 2025
<1%79%21%
3.89
MacKenzie Hammel
25W–15L career · no lines in 2025
<1%81%19%
3.88
Stephanie Besl
39W–20L career · no lines in 2025
<1%85%15%
3.86
Stephanie Moler
37W–24L career · no lines in 2025
<1%88%12%
3.85
Judy Dennis
59W–46L career · no lines in 2025
1%91%8%
3.82
Lynda Baumann
25W–48L career · no lines in 2025
1%92%7%
3.81
4
Chrissy Buckingham
32W–18L career · no lines in 2025
1%93%6%
3.79
Maureen Ernst
29W–17L career · no lines in 2025
1%93%5%
3.79
Perin Goodman
22W–20L career · no lines in 2025
2%94%4%
3.78
Lauren Keith
67W–51L career · no lines in 2025
2%94%3%
3.76
4
Amy Ellis
22W–21L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
4
Amy Schmitt
55W–27L career · no lines in 2025
3%94%2%
3.74
Susan Eberlein
31W–16L career · no lines in 2025
4%94%2%
3.73
4
Amanda Ehme
11W–13L career · no lines in 2025
4%94%2%
3.73
Paula Danis
99W–64L career · no lines in 2025
14%85%<1%
3.64
4
Heather Tash
35W–23L career · no lines in 2025
25%75%<1%
3.59
Jeanne Miller
44W–42L career · no lines in 2025
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.