Teams

FAC-STEINER D1 WE W tri-level showdown SEM

2022 SEM MICHIGAN SHOWDOWN - TRI-LEVEL · 2022 D1 WE W 10.0 9.0 8.0 SEMI SHOWDOWN TRI-LEVEL

18 players · average NTRP 4.23 / 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.

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
L#2 DoublesKatelyn Blumberg / N Maxine Kennebrew vs Kim Pelc / McCall Monte2-6, 4-6
L#3 DoublesClaire Baenen / Amy Gonte vs Yolanda Lewczuk / Ty Moss3-6, 1-6
W#1 DoublesNaoko McKelvey / Elena Strakhova vs N/A6-0, 6-0
L#2 DoublesAmy Blackwell / Barbara Friesen vs McCall Monte / Kim Pelc0-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesKate Farwell / Yumiko Farrell vs Yolanda Lewczuk / Ty Moss2-6, 1-6
L#1 DoublesNaoko McKelvey / Elena Strakhova vs Madeleine Paolucci / Jessica Kruczek4-6, 3-6
W#2 DoublesFrances Parsons / Christine Forester vs Diana Ticu / Ty Moss6-2, 7-6
W#3 DoublesAkemi Maebashi / Mie Tashiro vs Claire Beardslee / Kate Beardslee7-5, 6-3
L#2 DoublesNury Steiner / Amy Blackwell vs McCall Monte / Kim Pelc6-4, 1-6, 0-1
W#3 DoublesAkemi Maebashi / Madoka Minamoto vs Ty Moss / Marcia Varner6-2, 7-5
L#1 DoublesNaoko McKelvey / Frances Parsons vs Stephanie Schulte / Yahsha Moore3-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesClaire Baenen / Amy Blackwell vs Diana Ticu / Jessica Kruczek2-6, 4-6
L#3 DoublesKate Farwell / Janet Palmer vs Ty Moss / Kate Beardslee4-6, 5-7
L#1 DoublesNaoko McKelvey / Jenna Landis vs Colleen O'Brien / Yahsha Moore3-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesBarbara Friesen / N Maxine Kennebrew vs McCall Monte / Kim Pelc1-6, 0-6
L#3 DoublesMadoka Minamoto / Nury Steiner vs Yolanda Lewczuk / Ty Moss3-6, 2-6
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 standings2 teams · 2022 D1 WE W 10.0 9.0 8.0 SEMI SHOWDOWN TRI-LEVEL
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1EAST-MONTE D1 WE W tri-level showdown SEM5113511121
2FAC-STEINER D1 WE W tri-level showdown SEM1551326179

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 3.95 estimated across 12 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.

Elena Strakhova
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 5
4.43
Naoko McKelvey
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
4.40
Katelyn Blumberg
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
4.34
Amy Blackwell
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
Barbara Friesen
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
4.16
Christine Forester
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
3.92
Frances Parsons
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 4.5
3.88
Kate Farwell
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.85
Madoka Minamoto
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.85
Amy Gonte
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.80
Nury Steiner
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 4
Akemi Maebashi
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
Leimomi Respicio
published 4
3.69
Yumiko Farrell
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.54
Janet Palmer
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.49
Claire Baenen
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 4
Mie Tashiro
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
N Maxine Kennebrew
usually #2 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.

Madoka Minamoto + Akemi Maebashi4259% games+11.5% vs expected
N Maxine Kennebrew + Katelyn Blumberg12856% games+6.5% vs expected
Yumiko Farrell + Akemi Maebashi6357% games+6.3% vs expected
Claire Baenen + Amy Gonte111549% games+3.7% vs expected
Nury Steiner + Akemi Maebashi1447% games+1.8% vs expected
Akemi Maebashi + Mie Tashiro6264% games+0.8% vs expected
Madoka Minamoto + Mie Tashiro7851% games−3.7% vs expected
Madoka Minamoto + Nury Steiner4450% games−4.7% vs expected
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.

5
Elena Strakhova
61W–48L career · 1 line in 2022
not enough data
Naoko McKelvey
174W–82L career · 4 lines in 2022
<1%69%31%
4.43
Katelyn Blumberg
53W–22L career · 1 line in 2022
<1%77%23%
4.40
4.5
Amy Blackwell
69W–45L career · 3 lines in 2022
<1%88%12%
4.34
4.5
Barbara Friesen
46W–46L career · 2 lines in 2022
not enough data
4.5
Christine Forester
47W–61L career · 1 line in 2022
11%89%<1%
4.16
4.5
Frances Parsons
94W–79L career · 2 lines in 2022
72%28%<1%
3.92
4
Kate Farwell
129W–87L career · 2 lines in 2022
<1%83%17%
3.88
4
Madoka Minamoto
78W–61L career · 2 lines in 2022
<1%87%13%
3.85
4
Amy Gonte
189W–204L career · 1 line in 2022
<1%88%12%
3.85
4
Nury Steiner
185W–151L career · 2 lines in 2022
1%93%6%
3.80
4
Akemi Maebashi
66W–42L career · 2 lines in 2022
not enough data
4
Leimomi Respicio
26W–54L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
4
Yumiko Farrell
195W–151L career · 1 line in 2022
8%92%1%
3.69
Janet Palmer
43W–45L career · 1 line in 2022
37%63%<1%
3.54
4
Claire Baenen
136W–103L career · 2 lines in 2022
52%48%<1%
3.49
Mie Tashiro
42W–31L career · 1 line in 2022
not enough data
N Maxine Kennebrew
41W–59L 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.