3HV-CUTLER WOMEN 35 30 25 AUG TRI SEM F1
2025 bSEM TRI-LEVEL - AUGUST · 2025 WOMEN Tri-Level Aug Entry 3.5, 3.0, 2.5 SEM
23 players · average NTRP 3.07 / 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.
Schedule7 played
i
Flight standings16 teams · 2025 WOMEN Tri-Level Aug Entry 3.5, 3.0, 2.5 SEM
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1A4 WESS-REAMER WOMEN 35 30 25 AUG TRI SEM F2 | 6 | 2 | 15 | 154 |
| 22VTC-JOHNSTON WOMEN 35 30 25 AUG TRI SEM F1 | 5 | 2 | 19 | 174 |
| 3B5 DCD-MOORE WOMEN 35 30 25 AUG TRI SEM F2 | 5 | 3 | 21 | 179 |
| 4B4FAC-CICCARELLI WOMEN 35 30 25 AUG TRI SEM F2 | 5 | 3 | 25 | 213 |
| 5B2 SCWB-DU WOMEN 35 30 25 AUG TRI SEM F2 | 5 | 3 | 27 | 219 |
| 6A2 HAWK-BROOKS WOMEN 35 30 25 AUG TRI SEM F2 | 4 | 4 | 27 | 207 |
| 7A3 LT-EDWARDS WOMEN 35 30 25 AUG TRI SEM F2 | 4 | 4 | 28 | 200 |
| 83HV-CUTLER WOMEN 35 30 25 AUG TRI SEM F1 | 3 | 4 | 23 | 205 |
| 94HV-BAUER WOMEN 35 30 25 AUG TRI SEM F1 | 3 | 4 | 24 | 194 |
| 105HV-CHIEN WOMEN 35 30 25 AUG TRI SEM F1 | 3 | 4 | 27 | 221 |
| 11B3 WESS-SMILEY WOMEN 35 30 25 AUG TRI SEM F2 | 3 | 5 | 30 | 223 |
| 12A5 FOREST-KISSEL WOMEN 35 30 25 AUG TRI SEM F2 | 3 | 5 | 33 | 225 |
| 13B1 HAWK- MEYERS WOMEN 35 30 25 AUG TRI SEM F2 | 3 | 5 | 33 | 235 |
| 14A1 SCWB-WHITE WOMEN 35 30 25 AUG TRI SEM F2 | 2 | 6 | 35 | 255 |
| 15dropped team LIB-GONZALEZ WOMEN 35 30 25 AUG | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 16zHOLDING CELL | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 2.81 estimated across 23 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.
| Barbara Kramer + Sarah Burns | 4–4 | 48% games | +3.0% vs expected |
| Carrie Schmidt + Elizabeth King | 13–4 | 57% games | +2.3% vs expected |
| Elizabeth King + Deana Shields | 3–4 | 50% games | +2.3% vs expected |
| Sarah Burns + Jude Davies | 4–2 | 50% games | +0.6% vs expected |
| Barbara Kramer + Huma Soofi | 2–3 | 47% games | +0.3% vs expected |
| Susan Cutler + Carolynn Hayman | 3–5 | 45% games | −8.1% vs expected |
| Sarah Burns + Susan Cutler | 1–4 | 37% games | −9.0% vs expected |
| Julie Ewy + Deana Shields | 1–6 | 40% 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.