1BLOOM-READ 75 DAY WOMEN SEM F4
2024 SEM FALL COMBO DOUBLES · WOMEN 75 COMBO SEM
12 players · average NTRP 3.64 / 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.
Schedule9 played
i
Flight standings22 teams · WOMEN 75 COMBO SEM
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13LIB-SAULD 75 WOMEN SEM F3 | 9 | 1 | 19 | 219 |
| 23WESS-BARRY 75 DAY WOMEN SEM F1 | 8 | 1 | 14 | 152 |
| 31BEV-STRACHAN 75 WOMEN SEM F4 | 8 | 2 | 19 | 221 |
| 43SCWB-STEINER 75 WOMEN SEM F4 | 8 | 2 | 22 | 208 |
| 55TROY-LI 75 WOMEN SEM F2 | 8 | 2 | 24 | 250 |
| 64CRT4-HELD 75 WOMEN SEM F2 | 7 | 3 | 21 | 223 |
| 76LIFE-SZYMANSKI 75 WOMEN SEM F2 | 7 | 3 | 31 | 275 |
| 85FAC-JAM 75 WOMEN SEM F4 | 6 | 4 | 28 | 246 |
| 94LIB-MARLEY 75 WOMEN SEM F3 | 6 | 4 | 29 | 282 |
| 101VTC-CORTINA 75 WOMEN SEM F3 | 6 | 4 | 35 | 291 |
| 114DEER-SUTKIEWICZ 75 DAY WOMEN SEM F1 | 5 | 4 | 27 | 233 |
| 122FAC-LAU 75 DAY WOMEN SEM F1 | 4 | 5 | 36 | 261 |
| 134TROY-LIVINGSTON 75 WOMEN SEM F4 | 4 | 6 | 35 | 272 |
| 146HV-SHIELDS 75 WOMEN SEM F3 | 4 | 6 | 36 | 289 |
| 151PEACH-DEGUZMAN 75 WOMEN SEM F2 | 4 | 6 | 38 | 311 |
| 162BEV-MOORE 75 WOMEN SEM F4 | 4 | 6 | 42 | 307 |
| 172CHIP-SHAW 75 WOMEN SEM F3 | 3 | 7 | 42 | 303 |
| 182PH-HERBERT 75 WOMEN SEM F2 | 2 | 8 | 43 | 310 |
| 195TRAV-CHRISTENSEN 75 WOMEN SEM F3 | 2 | 8 | 44 | 317 |
| 203LIFE-MARVEL-NELSON 75 WOMEN SEM F2 | 2 | 8 | 49 | 331 |
| 211BLOOM-READ 75 DAY WOMEN SEM F4 | 1 | 8 | 43 | 289 |
| 226BLOOM-BARLOW 75 WOMEN SEM F4 | 0 | 10 | 55 | 349 |
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 3.29 estimated across 8 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.
| Connie Demkowicz + Jean Bandy | 9–3 | 60% games | +7.7% vs expected |
| Jean Bandy + Suzanne Gendelman | 3–3 | 46% games | +1.4% vs expected |
| Karen Read + Susan Mazur | 4–4 | 43% games | −0.4% vs expected |
| Karen Read + Mary Williams | 10–10 | 51% games | −0.9% vs expected |
| Connie Demkowicz + Suzanne Gendelman | 5–8 | 46% games | −4.6% vs expected |
| Karen Read + Suzanne Gendelman | 2–5 | 39% games | −7.0% vs expected |
| Lisa Haboian + Suzanne Gendelman | 4–3 | 56% games | not enough data |
| Lisa Haboian + Stacey Gutowsky | 2–5 | 34% games | not enough data |
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.