Teams

RTC CURTIS

2025 FW Ladies 18 Social Doubles Summer League · Saturday Ladies 4.0

22 players · average NTRP 4.12 / TEXAS

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2025-07-18vs RID BOYDSTONLost 01
L#1 DoublesMelanie Bartlett / Tiffany Rogers vs Drew Brigati / Christina Cung5-7, 0-6
2025-06-21vs RTC DURBORAWSplit 11
L#1 DoublesKristi McGuire / Sue Peters vs Stephanie Robinson / Kirti Kale6-2, 4-6, 0-1
W#2 DoublesTobi Prater / Christine Gerhard vs Anne Broyles / Kim Kerby-Dickman6-2, 7-6
2025-06-20vs ALL PALKOWon 10
W#3 DoublesMelanie Bartlett / Tiffany Rogers vs Shannon Mulroy / Brittany Evans6-3, 6-4
2025-06-07vs ALL PALKOSplit 11
L#2 DoublesChristine Gerhard / Tobi Prater vs Kimber Holt / Tandra Langford1-6, 3-6
W#3 DoublesDiana Kondratiuk / Jana Stokes vs Jennifer Palko / Carley Cagle4-6, 6-2, 1-0
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 standings for Saturday Ladies 4.0 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 3.62 estimated across 22 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.

3.97
Jennifer Pine
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.95
Christine Gerhard
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
3.93
Heather Steele Curtis
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
3.83
Debbie Henderson
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.74
Tracy Slicker
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
3.73
Carrie Hoogendoorn
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.71
Kristi McGuire
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.71
Lisa Swauger
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.70
Molly Pruner
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published
3.67
Soana Moores
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.64
Tracy Groves
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.63
Ruth WeinmannLopez
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.62
Gina Stewart
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
3.59
Tobi Prater
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.51
Priscila Vidal
published
3.49
Diana Kondratiuk
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.49
Sue Peters
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.46
Shawna Maginniss
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.41
Tiffany Rogers
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
3.40
Jennifer Curley
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
3.36
Jana Stokes
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.13
Melanie Bartlett
usually #2 Doubles 33%, also #1 Doubles 33% · 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.

Jennifer Pine + Heather Steele Curtis6173% games+7.0% vs expected
Tracy Slicker + Kristi McGuire1449% games+3.8% vs expected
Melanie Bartlett + Tiffany Rogers241451% games+2.5% vs expected
Molly Pruner + Carrie Hoogendoorn311854% games−0.4% vs expected
Sue Peters + Kristi McGuire3446% games−2.8% vs expected
Priscila Vidal + Christine Gerhard4252% games−5.6% vs expected
Debbie Henderson + Jennifer Pine314 matchesnot enough data
Tracy Groves + Jennifer Pine123 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.

Jennifer Pine
32W–12L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%59%41%
3.97
4.5
Christine Gerhard
19W–14L career · 3 lines in 2025
63%37%<1%
3.95
Heather Steele Curtis
58W–27L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%69%31%
3.93
4
Debbie Henderson
19W–8L career · 3 lines in 2025
1%88%11%
3.83
Tracy Slicker
41W–27L career · 3 lines in 2025
4%92%3%
3.74
4
Carrie Hoogendoorn
32W–18L career · 2 lines in 2025
5%92%3%
3.73
Kristi McGuire
8W–11L career · 1 line in 2025
6%92%2%
3.71
Lisa Swauger
5W–6L career · 1 line in 2025
7%91%2%
3.71
Molly Pruner
32W–22L career · 4 lines in 2025
8%91%2%
3.70
Soana Moores
6W–9L career · 2 lines in 2025
11%88%1%
3.67
Tracy Groves
14W–20L career · 1 line in 2025
16%83%<1%
3.64
Ruth WeinmannLopez
7W–8L career · 2 lines in 2025
18%81%<1%
3.63
Gina Stewart
23W–17L career · 2 lines in 2025
20%79%<1%
3.62
Tobi Prater
5W–4L career · 2 lines in 2025
25%75%<1%
3.59
Priscila Vidal
9W–8L career · no lines in 2025
<1%47%53%
3.51
4
Diana Kondratiuk
17W–14L career · 3 lines in 2025
52%48%<1%
3.49
Sue Peters
10W–19L career · 1 line in 2025
53%47%<1%
3.49
Shawna Maginniss
15W–5L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%60%40%
3.46
Tiffany Rogers
45W–28L career · 4 lines in 2025
<1%73%27%
3.41
Jennifer Curley
6W–8L career · 2 lines in 2025
76%24%<1%
3.40
Jana Stokes
23W–14L career · 1 line in 2025
1%84%15%
3.36
Melanie Bartlett
25W–15L career · 3 lines in 2025
19%81%<1%
3.13

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.