Teams

CTC Elliot

2022 OH OV FALL A40&O Charleston · 2022 FALL A 40&O 4.5 WOMEN Charleston

6 players · average NTRP 4.25 / OHIO VALLEY

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 →
Schedule3 played
2021-11-14vs Teays Valley PorterLost 12
W#1 DoublesCatherine Jarvis / Nancy Tiffey vs Alison Christie / Kelli Hinkle Mabe6-4, 6-1
L#1 SinglesShannon Elliot vs Dianne Fleming4-6, 7-5, 0-1
L#2 DoublesSusan Arbogast / Lynn Roth vs Kelly Levy / Donna Mooney3-6, 6-4, 0-1
2021-11-14vs Teays Valley PorterWon 31
W#1 DoublesGina Ratrie / Susan Arbogast vs Michelle Steele / Carol Porter6-2, 6-2
L#1 SinglesNancy Tiffey vs Dianne Fleming2-6, 3-6
W#2 DoublesCatherine Jarvis / Lynn Roth vs Kelli Hinkle Mabe / Kelly Levy6-3, 7-5
W#3 DoublesShannon Elliot / Paula Bailey vs Jimmie Baker / Alison Christie6-0, 6-3
2021-10-15vs Teays Valley PorterWon 40
W#1 DoublesKimberly Nelson / Catherine Jarvis vs Donna Mooney / Carol Porter6-1, 6-1
W#1 SinglesShannon Elliot vs Dianne Fleming6-3, 6-0
W#2 DoublesSusan Arbogast / Gina Ratrie vs Jimmie Baker / Alison Christie6-0, 6-0
W#3 DoublesPaula Bailey / Nancy Tiffey vs Kelly Levy / Michelle Steele2-6, 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 2022 FALL A 40&O 4.5 WOMEN Charleston 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.

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.

Catherine Jarvis
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4.5
Gina Ratrie
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 4
Lynn Roth
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Nancy Tiffey
usually #1 Doubles 33%, also #1 Singles 33% · published
Shannon Elliot
usually #1 Singles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
Susan Arbogast
usually #2 Doubles 67%, 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.

Catherine Jarvis + Nancy Tiffey9168% gamesnot enough data
Catherine Jarvis + Susan Arbogast5079% gamesnot enough data
Catherine Jarvis + Gina Ratrie404 matchesnot enough data
Gina Ratrie + Susan Arbogast303 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.

4.5
Catherine Jarvis
41W–13L career · 3 lines in 2022
not enough data
4
Gina Ratrie
51W–18L career · 4 lines in 2022
not enough data
Lynn Roth
22W–8L career · 2 lines in 2022
not enough data
Nancy Tiffey
21W–21L career · 3 lines in 2022
not enough data
Shannon Elliot
45W–35L career · 3 lines in 2022
not enough data
Susan Arbogast
21W–3L career · 3 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.