Teams

CDTA S 18&O 3.0W S Barrington Burns Mon 7 $20

CDTA Summer Adult 18 & Over WN · WE

13 players · average NTRP 3.33 / CHICAGO

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#1 DoublesMichelle Forney / Katie Jasper vs Julie Gordon / Kimberly Pfahl4-6, 2-6
W#2 DoublesTricia Lewis / Lisa Thorn vs Vilma Mitev / Irene Okada6-1, 6-4
L#3 DoublesCatie Burns / Sukanya Ganesan vs Michele Anderson / Dagmara Kolesnichenko3-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesMichelle Forney / Lisa Thorn vs Ginny Lazarus / C Mc6-1, 3-6, 0-1
W#2 SinglesSukanya Ganesan vs Lee Hart7-5, 0-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesElaine Pieropan / Tricia Lewis vs CHRISTINE TAN / Karin Steinbrueck6-4, 6-3
L#1 DoublesTricia Mendoza / Tena Bucalo vs Elena Chang / Veena Kulkarni3-6, 1-6
W#2 DoublesTricia Lewis / Lisa Thorn vs Jennifer Busse / Nancy Nora6-4, 5-3
L#1 DoublesKatie Jasper / Michelle Forney vs Mariana Ingersoll / Jamie Burns6-7, 2-6
W#2 DoublesTena Bucalo / Shabnam Singh vs Elise Bergman / Sabrina Jimenez-Pantoja3-6, 7-5, 1-0
W#3 DoublesJennifer Scott / Lisa Thorn vs Jan James-Calvert / Andee Harris6-0, 6-3
W#1 DoublesKatie Jasper / Laura Pearson vs Pamela Jackson / Kelleen Thut6-4, 6-1
L#2 DoublesCatie Burns / Rocelyn Caviles vs Catherine Lange / Stacey Watson1-6, 6-3, 0-1
W#3 DoublesTricia Mendoza / Tricia Lewis vs Miriam Wozniewski / Elizabeth Lucy Buckley7-5, 3-5, 1-0
W#1 DoublesLaura Pearson / Katie Jasper vs Anna Swanson / Jessica Vahey6-3, 3-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesMichelle Forney / Elaine Pieropan vs Michele Motta / Susan Schierl Sullivan6-1, 6-4
W#3 DoublesTena Bucalo / Shabnam Singh vs Julianne Hartzell / Jane Hensel3-6, 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 standings7 teams · WE
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1CDTA S 18&O 3.0W MT Chi Brown 1 Sun 2 $2551191127231
2CDTA S 18&O 3.0W Lake Bluff Sherman Sat 4 $2042181230243
3CDTA S 18&O 3.0W S Barrington Burns Mon 7 $2042171333267
4CDTA S 18&O 3.0W MT Bann Gordon Sun 2 $2533141635273
5CDTA S 18&O 3.0W Centennial Cohen Sun 11 $2033121841276
6CDTA S 18&O 3.0W MT Pal Lange Sat 2 $2615131734263
7CDTA S 18&O 3.0W MT Chi Brown 2 Sun 2 $2515121842298

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 2.84 estimated across 7 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.

Amy Byrne
usually #1 Singles 73%, also #2 Singles 18% · published 4
3.07
Katie Jasper
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.00
Laura Pearson
usually #1 Doubles 57%, also #3 Doubles 29% · published
2.85
Lisa Thorn
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
2.85
Shabnam Singh
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
2.72
Elaine Pieropan
usually #3 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published 3
2.71
Catie Burns
published 3
2.66
Tricia Lewis
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
Michelle Forney
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
Rocelyn Caviles
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Sukanya Ganesan
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
Tena Bucalo
published
Tricia Mendoza
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · 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.

Shabnam Singh + Katie Jasper4445% games−5.4% vs expected
Elaine Pieropan + Shabnam Singh0631% games−10.1% vs expected
Tricia Mendoza + Lisa Thorn2740% games−11.0% vs expected
Catie Burns + Laura Pearson13356% gamesnot enough data
Catie Burns + Rocelyn Caviles9658% gamesnot enough data
Elaine Pieropan + Laura Pearson3547% gamesnot enough data
Laura Pearson + Amy Byrne5360% gamesnot enough data
Michelle Forney + Catie Burns1644% gamesnot 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.

4
Amy Byrne
47W–22L career · type A · 11 lines in 2022
not enough data
Katie Jasper
20W–33L career · 4 lines in 2022
28%71%<1%
3.07
Laura Pearson
59W–55L career · 7 lines in 2022
51%49%<1%
3.00
Lisa Thorn
16W–41L career · 4 lines in 2022
87%13%<1%
2.85
Shabnam Singh
19W–33L career · 2 lines in 2022
87%13%<1%
2.85
3
Elaine Pieropan
41W–66L career · 5 lines in 2022
4%94%2%
2.72
3
Catie Burns
71W–103L career · no lines in 2022
5%93%1%
2.71
Tricia Lewis
41W–81L career · 4 lines in 2022
11%89%<1%
2.66
Michelle Forney
30W–62L career · 4 lines in 2022
not enough data
Rocelyn Caviles
14W–18L career · 1 line in 2022
not enough data
Sukanya Ganesan
8W–10L career · 2 lines in 2022
not enough data
Tena Bucalo
0W–1L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Tricia Mendoza
20W–32L 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.