Teams

Cody/Mazzier

2023 Adult 18 & Over Fall · Women 4.0

17 players · average NTRP 3.80 / ST. LOUIS

View scouting list →
Schedule10 played
2022-12-11vs FridleyLost 01
L#1 SinglesKate Lam vs Liz Rice1-6, 0-6
2022-12-04vs GoldmannLost 01
L#3 DoublesCarey Moore / Ritika Chand Bergfeld vs Florence Streeter / Kelly Lauman6-3, 0-6, 0-1
2022-11-13vs Ross/SchlaflyLost 03
L#2 DoublesRobin Shiras-Cody / Ritika Chand Bergfeld vs Teresa Schlafly / Kirsten Smith3-6, 6-3, 0-1
L#2 SinglesKate Lam vs Emily Gerber5-7, 3-5
L#3 DoublesBeverly Menendez / Ann Grassle vs Rose Ehresman / Diane Binz3-6, 1-6
2022-11-06vs GundlefingerWon 10
W#2 DoublesAnn Grassle / Carey Moore vs Jennifer O'Brien / Shannon Diaz2-6, 7-6, 1-0
2022-10-30vs PetersonLost 02
L#2 SinglesKate Lam vs Mary Hartman2-6, 0-6
L#3 DoublesRitika Chand Bergfeld / Carey Moore vs Lydia Sanders / Monica Covington6-1, 6-7, 0-1
2022-10-09vs Brewer/PatelSplit 11
W#2 SinglesKate Lam vs Kristen Roberts6-4, 6-0
L#3 DoublesAnn Grassle / Ritika Chand Bergfeld vs Sue Percy / Victoria Wheeler1-6, 5-7
2022-10-02vs HoxseySplit 11
L#2 SinglesKate Lam vs Lindsay Pritchett4-6, 4-6
W#3 DoublesCarey Moore / Beverly Menendez vs Elizabeth Peters / Kaitlin Lamack6-4, 6-1
2022-09-25vs Burke / KnittelWon 21
W#2 DoublesRitika Chand Bergfeld / Dana Mazzier vs Diana Stevenson / Brenda Eller7-6, 7-6
W#2 SinglesKate Lam vs Erica Rosen-McGinnis6-4, 6-2
L#3 DoublesBeverly Menendez / Caroline Windholz vs Allison Lee / Lolly Cottrell6-4, 2-6, 0-1
2022-09-18vs Wayt/BellWon 20
W#1 SinglesKate Lam vs Mary Zimmer7-5, 4-2
W#3 DoublesRitika Chand Bergfeld / Carey Moore vs Deborah Edwards / Diane Stern6-3, 6-4
2022-09-11vs Kitchens/SiddleWon 10
W#1 DoublesKelly Short / Kate Lam vs Diana Trickey / Hope Zittel6-2, 7-6
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 standings for Women 4.0 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 3.45 estimated across 16 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.

3.87
Molly Clipp
usually #1 Doubles 42%, also #1 Singles 42% · published
3.82
Kelly Short
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
3.74
Julie Conway
usually #1 Doubles 83%, also #2 Doubles 17% · published
3.65
Kate Lam
usually #2 Singles 63%, also #1 Singles 25% · published
3.63
Donna Geiselhart
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
3.57
Ritika Chand Bergfeld
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.55
Valerie Green
usually #1 Singles 56%, also #2 Singles 44% · published
3.50
Carey Moore
usually #1 Doubles 40%, also #3 Doubles 27% · published 4
3.46
Robin Shiras-Cody
usually #2 Doubles 64%, also #1 Doubles 18% · published
3.35
Ann Grassle
usually #2 Singles 38%, also #1 Singles 31% · published 4
3.31
Dana Mazzier
usually #2 Doubles 78%, also #3 Doubles 22% · published 4
3.31
Kathleen Odegard
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 38% · published
Beverly Menendez
usually #3 Doubles 83%, also #1 Doubles 17% · published 3.5
3.19
Caroline Windholz
published 3.5
3.14
Jill Weber
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
3.05
Jacqueline Hamilton
usually #2 Doubles 57%, also #3 Doubles 43% · published
3.05
Mary Weiss
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 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.

Julie Conway + Robin Shiras-Cody6257% games+9.2% vs expected
Mary Weiss + Julie Conway7154% games+4.0% vs expected
Ann Grassle + Carey Moore5644% games+3.3% vs expected
Julie Conway + Kelly Short301257% games+3.2% vs expected
Robin Shiras-Cody + Dana Mazzier452155% games+2.9% vs expected
Mary Weiss + Dana Mazzier12950% games+1.7% vs expected
Mary Weiss + Kathleen Odegard121747% games+0.6% vs expected
Kathleen Odegard + Jacqueline Hamilton3351% games+0.2% vs expected
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.

Molly Clipp
200W–82L career · 12 lines in 2023
<1%82%17%
3.87
Kelly Short
83W–47L career · 12 lines in 2023
1%89%9%
3.82
Julie Conway
140W–82L career · 12 lines in 2023
5%92%3%
3.74
Kate Lam
26W–30L career · 8 lines in 2023
14%85%1%
3.65
Donna Geiselhart
93W–78L career · 6 lines in 2023
18%81%<1%
3.63
Ritika Chand Bergfeld
124W–102L career · 11 lines in 2023
32%68%<1%
3.57
Valerie Green
156W–127L career · 18 lines in 2023
36%64%<1%
3.55
4
Carey Moore
111W–118L career · 14 lines in 2023
51%49%<1%
3.50
Robin Shiras-Cody
143W–134L career · 11 lines in 2023
61%39%<1%
3.46
4
Ann Grassle
143W–151L career · 15 lines in 2023
87%13%<1%
3.35
4
Dana Mazzier
104W–90L career · type A · 9 lines in 2023
91%9%<1%
3.31
Kathleen Odegard
49W–66L career · 8 lines in 2023
1%90%9%
3.31
3.5
Beverly Menendez
64W–57L career · 6 lines in 2023
not enough data
3.5
Caroline Windholz
5W–12L career · no lines in 2023
9%90%1%
3.19
Jill Weber
15W–57L career · 4 lines in 2023
16%84%1%
3.14
Jacqueline Hamilton
59W–57L career · 7 lines in 2023
35%65%<1%
3.05
Mary Weiss
63W–106L career · 12 lines in 2023
36%64%<1%
3.05

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.