Teams

EJohnson

2022 Cap Spring USTA 18 & over · 4.0 Women

11 players · average NTRP 4.05 / NORTH CAROLINA

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 →
Schedule9 played
2022-05-15vs AKoltchagovaLost 13
L#1 DoublesEmily Johnson / Averil Glover vs Emily Culbreth / Cindy Rosplock4-6, 1-6
L#1 SinglesAnna Tomkins vs Mallory Short2-6, 2-6
W#2 DoublesErika Grenier / Rachael Kiker vs Anna Koltchagova / Cheryl Mitchell6-4, 6-2
L#3 DoublesLori Hatlen / Joy Horovitz vs Rochelle Grieco / Cynthia Jones4-6, 7-5, 0-1
2022-05-08Won 30
W#1 DoublesEmma Hughes / Heather Slinkard vs N/A6-0, 6-0
W#2 DoublesLori Hatlen / Joy Horovitz vs N/A6-0, 6-0
W#3 DoublesSandra Chapman-Wilson / Rachael Kiker vs N/A6-0, 6-0
2022-05-01vs EMcAllisterWon 31
W#1 DoublesSandra Chapman-Wilson / Rachael Kiker vs Dara Haney / Susan Paeplow6-1, 3-6, 1-0
W#1 SinglesAnna Tomkins vs Eva Garland6-3, 6-1
L#2 DoublesAveril Glover / Donna Wells vs Lola Jefferies / Jennifer Wray4-6, 7-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesErika Grenier / Heather Slinkard vs Zana Piric / Kelleigh Russo4-6, 6-2, 1-0
2022-04-24vs SRhoades/SARCWon 30
W#1 DoublesJoy Horovitz / Donna Wells vs Holly Moore / Jeanmarie Warren4-6, 6-3, 1-0
W#2 SinglesAnna Tomkins vs Amanda Campbell6-3, 6-0
W#3 DoublesErika Grenier / Sandra Chapman-Wilson vs Allison DeMacy / Lynda Noga6-2, 6-3
2022-04-03vs NGoodwinLost 03
L#1 DoublesLori Hatlen / Heather Slinkard vs Chunhui Higgins / Sandy Wood2-6, 6-7
L#2 DoublesAllison Graves / Averil Glover vs Nannette Goodwin / Christina Loaiza2-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesRachael Kiker / Sandra Chapman-Wilson vs Mary Prabel / Lori Jensen7-6, 5-7, 0-1
2022-03-27vs MThenWon 21
L#1 DoublesEmily Johnson / Rachael Kiker vs Anneliese Carr / Meghan Howard6-7, 1-6
W#2 DoublesAveril Glover / Erika Grenier vs Ally Blake / Liz Broadway7-6, 6-3
W#3 DoublesElizabeth Harvie / Lori Hatlen vs Lauren Bolger / Lindsey Klein7-5, 3-6, 1-0
2022-03-20vs DJohn 18+ 4.0Won 21
L#1 DoublesAveril Glover / Emily Johnson vs Deno Fonville / Pamela Hankerson7-5, 3-6, 0-1
W#2 DoublesLori Hatlen / Donna Wells vs Tiffany Varela / Chequetta Ann Nobles Hall6-3, 6-3
W#3 DoublesSandra Chapman-Wilson / Rachael Kiker vs QUEEN HARGROVE / Keisha Price7-5, 6-0
2022-03-13vs GThayer-KempfLost 02
L#1 DoublesJoy Horovitz / Erika Grenier vs Elena Pinkus / Jeme Avent1-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesHeather Slinkard / Donna Wells vs Gwynn Thayer / Meryl Golder3-6, 1-6
2022-03-06vs JGILLENLost 12
L#1 DoublesDonna Wells / Lori Hatlen vs Jane Britt / Mary Money6-2, 4-6, 0-1
W#2 DoublesAveril Glover / Emily Johnson vs Marcia Fort / Mary Hoag6-4, 6-4
L#3 DoublesRachael Kiker / Sandra Chapman-Wilson vs Susan Fekete / Jeanne Gillen6-4, 3-6, 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 4.0 Women 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 3.74 estimated across 10 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.

4.21
Anna Tomkins
usually #1 Singles 43%, also #1 Doubles 29% · published 4.5
4.19
Allison Graves
published 4.5
4.01
Rachael Kiker
usually #3 Doubles 57%, also #1 Doubles 29% · published 4
3.80
Elizabeth Harvie
published 4
Erika Grenier
published 4
3.73
Sandra Chapman-Wilson
usually #3 Doubles 83%, also #1 Doubles 17% · published 4
3.69
Lori Hatlen
usually #1 Doubles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.64
Joy Horovitz
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 4
3.44
Donna Wells
published 4
3.42
Heather Slinkard
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 4
3.23
Averil Glover
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
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.

Rachael Kiker + Sandra Chapman-Wilson5360% gamesnot enough data
Averil Glover + Sandra Chapman-Wilson033 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
Anna Tomkins
352W–48L career · 7 lines in 2022
5%94%1%
4.21
4.5
Allison Graves
38W–20L career · no lines in 2022
7%92%1%
4.19
4
Rachael Kiker
164W–91L career · 7 lines in 2022
<1%48%52%
4.01
4
Elizabeth Harvie
26W–19L career · no lines in 2022
1%93%6%
3.80
4
Erika Grenier
0W–1L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
4
Sandra Chapman-Wilson
91W–127L career · 6 lines in 2022
4%94%2%
3.73
4
Lori Hatlen
137W–170L career · type A · 6 lines in 2022
8%92%1%
3.69
4
Joy Horovitz
29W–40L career · 4 lines in 2022
14%85%<1%
3.64
4
Donna Wells
0W–3L career · type S · no lines in 2022
66%34%<1%
3.44
4
Heather Slinkard
78W–107L career · 4 lines in 2022
72%28%<1%
3.42
3.5
Averil Glover
108W–92L career · 6 lines in 2022
4%94%2%
3.23

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.