Teams

Pennypacker B

Adult Tri-Level League · Tri Level Women 4.0

18 players · average NTRP 3.55 / PHILADELPHIA

View scouting list →
Schedule7 played
2025-11-08vs Cynwyd triple threatLost 01
L#1 DoublesElizabeth Austin / Rhonda Parris vs Pikai Oh / Noelle Frey1-6, 2-6
2025-10-25vs Fantastic Girls TriLost 12
W#1 DoublesElizabeth Austin / Mary Brewster vs Wen He / Sha Ha3-6, 7-5, 1-0
L#2 DoublesAmy Farina / Beth Adams vs Jiangying Liao / Ming Chen Pu5-7, 0-6
L#3 DoublesPamela Tedesco / Paige Stocker vs Xiuru Sun / Kathy Ng3-6, 3-6
2025-10-18vs Pennypacker ALost 12
L#1 DoublesDiane Stanko / Merri Gardner vs Tammy Harris / Nancy Salamon2-6, 0-6
W#2 DoublesMegan Murray / Dianne Nicolosi vs Christy Saddic-Cosgrove / Alyce Shaw6-2, 6-4
L#3 DoublesVanessa Colley / Pamela Tedesco vs Chris Curtis / MaryLou Henken4-6, 0-6
2025-10-04vs Cynwyd triple threatWon 21
W#1 DoublesElizabeth Austin / Rhonda Parris vs Sheena Hauser / Carolyn Nagy7-5, 3-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesMegan Murray / Diane Hogan vs MaryJeanette Dee / Elaina Lin6-2, 6-1
L#3 DoublesPamela Tedesco / Paige Stocker vs Laurie Actman / Jennifer Selber6-4, 3-6, 0-1
2025-09-20vs Fantastic Girls TriLost 03
L#1 DoublesDiane Stanko / Megan Murray vs Jia Liu / Elizabeth Kim3-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesBeth Adams / Amy Farina vs Annette Borst / Jiangying Liao1-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesPamela Tedesco / Vanessa Colley vs Lauren Shohet / Xiuru Sun5-7, 0-6
2025-09-13vs Pennypacker ASplit 11
W#2 DoublesMerri Gardner / Diane Hogan vs Christy Saddic-Cosgrove / Danielle Lombardo6-3, 6-1
L#3 DoublesPaige Stocker / Pamela Tedesco vs Chris Curtis / Pamela Wight4-6, 5-7
2025-09-06vs Rally CatsWon 21
W#1 DoublesMary Brewster / Elizabeth Austin vs Tracy Brown / Emma Anisman6-1, 6-3
W#2 DoublesBeth Adams / Amy Farina vs Heather Harris / Emma Carabello4-6, 6-0, 1-0
L#3 DoublesNikki Campbell / Paige Stocker vs Anna Kelly / Christine Coburn2-6, 2-6
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 standings5 teams · Tri Level Women 4.0
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Fantastic Girls Tri8021310158
2Pennypacker A62131123190
3Pennypacker B2571431215
4Cynwyd triple threat2691533234
5Rally Cats1671429206

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 3.22 estimated across 15 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.

4.16
Steven Motyka
published
3.84
Rhonda Parris
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published 4
3.79
Mary Brewster
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
Elizabeth Austin
published 4
3.47
Katie Rementer
published 3.5
3.33
Dianne Nicolosi
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.32
Megan Murray
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.31
Diane Stanko
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.30
Merri Gardner
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
3.23
Amy Farina
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.04
Beth Adams
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.03
Patricia Kelly
published
2.92
Diane Hogan
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.90
Vanessa Colley
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Cat Day
published 3
2.35
Pamela Tedesco
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.33
Nikki Campbell
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Paige Stocker
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.

Dianne Nicolosi + Patricia Kelly171748% games+0.8% vs expected
Amy Farina + Beth Adams8849% games−2.1% vs expected
Diane Hogan + Beth Adams91347% games−6.4% vs expected
Rhonda Parris + Elizabeth Austin123 matchesnot enough data
Vanessa Colley + Pamela Tedesco033 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.

Steven Motyka
24W–35L career · no lines in 2025
11%88%<1%
4.16
4
Rhonda Parris
126W–74L career · 5 lines in 2025
<1%88%12%
3.84
4
Mary Brewster
133W–70L career · 2 lines in 2025
1%94%5%
3.79
4
Elizabeth Austin
28W–51L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
3.5
Katie Rementer
51W–22L career · no lines in 2025
<1%59%41%
3.47
3.5
Dianne Nicolosi
21W–19L career · 1 line in 2025
1%90%10%
3.33
3.5
Megan Murray
153W–123L career · 3 lines in 2025
1%91%8%
3.32
3.5
Diane Stanko
15W–13L career · 2 lines in 2025
1%92%7%
3.31
Merri Gardner
47W–44L career · 2 lines in 2025
1%93%6%
3.30
3.5
Amy Farina
62W–50L career · 3 lines in 2025
4%94%2%
3.23
3.5
Beth Adams
27W–30L career · type A · 3 lines in 2025
38%62%<1%
3.04
Patricia Kelly
25W–38L career · no lines in 2025
42%58%<1%
3.03
3
Diane Hogan
27W–41L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%73%27%
2.92
Vanessa Colley
10W–9L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%78%22%
2.90
3
Cat Day
74W–72L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Pamela Tedesco
27W–30L career · 5 lines in 2025
0%88%12%
2.35
Nikki Campbell
12W–11L career · 1 line in 2025
0%91%9%
2.33
Paige Stocker
8W–20L career · no lines in 2025
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.