Teams

LFNT:Tri me a river:Schmid/Chiang

2026 EMA Tri Level Winter · Spring

6 players · average NTRP 5.00 / EASTERN MASSACHUSETTS

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 →
Schedule8 played
2026-08-05vs LFNT:Natick:EbbertWon 10
W#1 DoublesLauren Van Allen / Gabriela Yetten vs Lindsay Ebbert / CariAnne Kreml6-2, 6-0
2026-07-28vs LFNT:Natick:EbbertLost 01
L#1 DoublesMarybeth Liang / Gabriela Yetten vs Simona Kylberger / Anna Makarova3-6, 6-4, 0-1
2026-07-15vs WTC:Triceratops:JeppsonWon 10
W#1 DoublesConnie Chiang / Alina Murray vs Dana Bacalla / Chance Fechtor6-0, 6-1
2026-06-14vs WTC:Triceratops:JeppsonWon 10
W#1 DoublesJenna Schmid / Connie Chiang vs Pamela Jeppson / Sarah Wallach6-3, 6-4
2026-06-07vs SSY:SSYMCA:DannisonWon 10
W#1 DoublesJenna Schmid / Alina Murray vs Anastasia Rozanitis / Kelsey Neville6-0, 6-3
2026-05-17vs SSY:SSYMCA:DannisonLost 01
L#1 DoublesMarybeth Liang / Connie Chiang vs Laurie Dannison / Kelsey Neville6-3, 3-6, 0-1
2026-05-10vs LFNT:Natick:EbbertWon 10
W#1 DoublesLauren Van Allen / Connie Chiang vs Anna Makarova / Simona Kylberger1-6, 7-5, 1-0
2026-04-26vs SSY:SSYMCA:DannisonWon 10
W#1 DoublesConnie Chiang / Alina Murray vs Anastasia Rozanitis / Laurie Dannison6-2, 6-0
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 standings4 teams · Spring
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1LFNT:Tri me a river:Schmid/Chiang0862547
2WTC:Triceratops:Jeppson08441079
3SSY:SSYMCA:Dannison08441080
4LFNT:Natick:Ebbert08261379

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 4.84 estimated across 5 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.

5.14
Alina Murray
published 5
5.09
Gabriela Yetten
published 5
4.83
Connie Chiang
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 5
4.71
Jenna Schmid
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
4.42
Marybeth Liang
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Lauren Van Allen
usually #1 Doubles 100% · 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.

Alina Murray + Connie Chiang5086% games+19.8% vs expected
Gabriela Yetten + Lauren Van Allen404 matchesnot enough data
Connie Chiang + Jenna Schmid404 matchesnot enough data
Gabriela Yetten + Connie Chiang213 matchesnot enough data
Marybeth Liang + Jenna Schmid213 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.

5
Alina Murray
7W–0L career · no lines in 2026
no projection at this level
5.14
5
Gabriela Yetten
21W–13L career · no lines in 2026
no projection at this level
5.09
5
Connie Chiang
20W–10L career · 5 lines in 2026
no projection at this level
4.83
Jenna Schmid
30W–5L career · 2 lines in 2026
no projection at this level
4.71
Marybeth Liang
109W–41L career · 2 lines in 2026
no projection at this level
4.42
Lauren Van Allen
5W–0L career · 2 lines in 2026
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.