Teams

RTC DURBORAW

2026 FW USTA Adult Fall Ladies · Saturday 3.0 ladies

11 players · average NTRP 3.00 / TEXAS

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 →
Schedule1 played
2025-09-13vs RID HYDE/MCWHIRTERWon 21
L#1 DoublesSam Martinez / Ildiko Lingvay vs Lauren Hyde / Brooke McWhirter4-6, 2-6
W#1 SinglesMihaela Kruger vs Melissa Otto6-2, 6-3
W#3 DoublesCharlene Fung / Michelle Ebbens vs Madelyn Machac / Jimmie Busselman6-0, 6-1
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 Saturday 3.0 ladies 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 2.81 estimated across 11 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.

3.18
Maura Jackson
usually #1 Doubles 89%, also #3 Doubles 11% · published
3.10
Mihaela Kruger
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
3.02
Charlene Fung
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 3
2.93
Ildiko Lingvay
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.83
Sally Waite
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.75
Ruth Valtierrez
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.74
Janis Deane
usually #3 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
2.73
Sam Martinez
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.56
Noel Cottrell
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.52
LINDA FEATHERSTONE
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.50
Michelle Ebbens
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · 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.

Ildiko Lingvay + Mihaela Kruger4254% games+10.2% vs expected
Noel Cottrell + Sam Martinez4156% games+9.4% vs expected
Noel Cottrell + Charlene Fung314 matchesnot enough data
Sam Martinez + Charlene Fung404 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.

Maura Jackson
20W–17L career · 9 lines in 2026
<1%10%90%
3.18
Mihaela Kruger
18W–5L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%24%76%
3.10
3
Charlene Fung
33W–15L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%46%54%
3.02
Ildiko Lingvay
17W–11L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%69%31%
2.93
Sally Waite
6W–13L career · 1 line in 2026
1%87%12%
2.83
Ruth Valtierrez
4W–7L career · 2 lines in 2026
3%93%4%
2.75
Janis Deane
10W–13L career · 4 lines in 2026
5%92%3%
2.74
Sam Martinez
13W–14L career · 1 line in 2026
5%92%3%
2.73
Noel Cottrell
13W–15L career · 2 lines in 2026
32%68%<1%
2.56
LINDA FEATHERSTONE
10W–30L career · 1 line in 2026
44%56%<1%
2.52
Michelle Ebbens
11W–11L career · 4 lines in 2026
0%49%51%
2.50

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.