Teams

KY/BG/FEE

2022 USTA ADULT 18 & OVER REGIONAL · 4.0 Women WK Combined

8 players · average NTRP / KENTUCKY

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 →
Schedule4 played
2022-05-15vs KY/OWB/CLAYTONLost 02
L#1 DoublesMinda Schafer / Julie Isaac vs Brenda Clayton / Sarah Brown5-7, 4-6
L#2 DoublesGabrielle Springs / Jaymie Roberts vs Mary Jochim / Kerry Bodenheimer5-7, 2-6
2022-05-15vs KY/OWB/CLAYTONLost 12
L#1 SinglesTrina Rickard vs Caroline Hayden2-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesSarah Nuse / Julie Isaac vs Brenda Clayton / Mary Jochim2-6, 2-6
W#2 SinglesMartina Fee vs Kerry Bodenheimer6-2, 6-2
2022-04-24vs KY/OWB/CLAYTONLost 02
L#2 DoublesMartina Fee / Melissa Kohl vs Sarah Brown / Brenda Clayton1-6, 0-6
L#3 DoublesJoan Douglas / Gabrielle Springs vs Kerry Bodenheimer / Stephanie Gray6-7, 4-6
2022-04-24vs KY/OWB/CLAYTONLost 04
L#1 DoublesJaymie Roberts / Joan Douglas vs Sarah Brown / Brenda Clayton4-6, 2-6
L#1 SinglesMartina Fee vs Sandra Barnes4-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesMichelle Elkins / Melissa Kohl vs Christine Clements / Stephanie Gray0-6, 2-6
L#3 DoublesGabrielle Springs / Samantha Springs vs Kerry Bodenheimer / Lauren Patmore5-7, 4-6
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 standings2 teams · 4.0 Women WK Combined
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1KY/OWB/CLAYTON3115510134
2KY/BG/FEE1351531210

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 3.39 estimated across 2 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.

3.60
Trina Rickard
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
3.17
Joan Douglas
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
Gabrielle Springs
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
Julie Isaac
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
Martina Fee
usually #2 Singles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
Melissa Kohl
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Minda Schafer
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Shannon Maglinger
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.

Shannon Maglinger + Martina Fee7072% games+16.4% vs expected
Joan Douglas + Gabrielle Springs044 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.

Trina Rickard
8W–7L career · 1 line in 2022
21%79%<1%
3.60
Joan Douglas
1W–16L career · 2 lines in 2022
9%90%1%
3.17
Gabrielle Springs
1W–8L career · 3 lines in 2022
not enough data
Julie Isaac
0W–5L career · 2 lines in 2022
not enough data
Martina Fee
9W–6L career · 3 lines in 2022
not enough data
Melissa Kohl
2W–2L career · 2 lines in 2022
not enough data
Minda Schafer
3W–2L career · 1 line in 2022
not enough data
Shannon Maglinger
10W–2L career · no 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.