Teams

FSSC Popp

2023 OH OV FALL A18&O Daytime · 3.0W Tuesday

16 players · average NTRP 3.42 / 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 →
Flight standings3 teams · 3.0W Tuesday
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1FSSC Popp7119513154
2QRRC Brooks44111328203
3QRRC Hayes1761838260

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 3.15 estimated across 13 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.

3.59
Georgianne Lowman
usually #2 Singles 38%, also #1 Singles 25% · published 3.5
3.39
Casey Bagley
usually #2 Doubles 33%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.36
Amy Elsass
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 3.5
3.30
Jan Wineberg
usually #2 Doubles 55%, also #2 Singles 36% · published
3.29
Stacie Remaly
usually #1 Singles 46%, also #2 Singles 27% · published
3.25
Jenah Bartek
usually #1 Singles 36%, also #2 Singles 27% · published
3.17
Kelsey Schuering
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
3.15
Jamie Compton
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.12
Deborah Whitcomb
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.05
Megan Popp
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.89
Sonja Smallwood
usually #3 Doubles 83%, also #2 Doubles 17% · published
2.72
Dana Blanton
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.65
Julie Bodnar
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 38% · published
Julie Matthews
published
Kendra Ellis
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.

Amy Elsass + Jamie Compton181254% games+8.8% vs expected
Amy Elsass + Megan Popp13956% games+8.8% vs expected
Amy Elsass + Casey Bagley5355% games+8.2% vs expected
Suzanne Loudner Wittmer + Casey Bagley5258% games+7.0% vs expected
Casey Bagley + Kelsey Schuering201950% games+4.9% vs expected
Stacie Remaly + Georgianne Lowman4254% games+4.6% vs expected
Stacie Remaly + Jan Wineberg101748% games+4.5% vs expected
Casey Bagley + Megan Popp2642% games+1.9% 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.

3.5
Georgianne Lowman
125W–79L career · 8 lines in 2023
<1%23%77%
3.59
3.5
Casey Bagley
84W–64L career · 3 lines in 2023
<1%80%19%
3.39
3.5
Amy Elsass
118W–88L career · 2 lines in 2023
<1%86%14%
3.36
Jan Wineberg
157W–266L career · 11 lines in 2023
1%93%6%
3.30
Stacie Remaly
105W–126L career · 11 lines in 2023
1%94%5%
3.29
Jenah Bartek
105W–162L career · 10 lines in 2023
3%95%3%
3.25
Kelsey Schuering
80W–79L career · 3 lines in 2023
9%90%1%
3.17
3.5
Jamie Compton
86W–100L career · 2 lines in 2023
12%88%<1%
3.15
3.5
Deborah Whitcomb
156W–182L career · 4 lines in 2023
18%82%<1%
3.12
Megan Popp
68W–80L career · 2 lines in 2023
36%64%<1%
3.05
Sonja Smallwood
138W–119L career · 6 lines in 2023
<1%79%21%
2.89
3
Dana Blanton
36W–38L career · 5 lines in 2023
4%94%2%
2.72
Julie Bodnar
66W–118L career · 8 lines in 2023
12%88%<1%
2.65
Julie Matthews
17W–26L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Kendra Ellis
10W–3L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Suzanne Loudner Wittmer
56W–44L career · no lines in 2023
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.