2PEACH-PARROTT 35NW MO 40&O SEM F3
2025 bSEM ADULT 40 & OVER NIGHT WOMEN · 3.5 WOMEN MON PM SEM
13 players · average NTRP 3.36 / S.E. MICHIGAN
No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.
Schedule9 played
i
Flight standings22 teams · 3.5 WOMEN MON PM SEM
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13TROY-SEGERLIND 35NW MO 40&O SEM F1 | 9 | 0 | 18 | 251 |
| 23EAST-THOMAS 35NW MO 40&O SEM F3 | 8 | 1 | 29 | 314 |
| 34HV-MCKENZIE 35NW MO 40&O SEM F5 | 8 | 1 | 35 | 356 |
| 46WESS-LI 35NW MO 40&O SEM F2 | 7 | 1 | 29 | 300 |
| 54BT-FIETSAM 35NW MO 40&O SEM F2 | 6 | 2 | 33 | 321 |
| 66LIB-DAWSON 35NW MO 40&O SEM F4 | 6 | 2 | 33 | 325 |
| 71PH-HIGGINS 35NW MO 40&O SEM F3 | 6 | 3 | 47 | 396 |
| 81AAREC-HURON-CORTINA 35NW MO 40&O SEM F4 | 5 | 3 | 35 | 291 |
| 93BART-GEER 35NW MO 40&O SEM F4 | 4 | 4 | 53 | 405 |
| 105VTC-inside-HAESSLER 35NW MO 40&O SEM F4 | 4 | 4 | 54 | 367 |
| 112PEACH-PARROTT 35NW MO 40&O SEM F3 | 4 | 5 | 47 | 416 |
| 122SCWB-CHEN 35NW MO 40&O SEM F5 | 4 | 5 | 50 | 433 |
| 131DCD-MOORE 35NW MO 40&O SEM F1 | 4 | 5 | 51 | 394 |
| 141SCWB-MOSS 35NW MO 40&O SEM F5 | 4 | 5 | 54 | 435 |
| 152BOH-LIUT 35NW MO 40&O SEM F2 | 3 | 5 | 48 | 378 |
| 162WESS-BROWN 35NW MO 40&O SEM F1 | 3 | 6 | 57 | 398 |
| 171TROY-SHIER 35NW MO 40&O SEM F2 | 2 | 6 | 55 | 403 |
| 183DEER-GIBBS 35NW MO 40&O SEM F2 | 2 | 6 | 60 | 413 |
| 193CHIP-PONCHART 35NW MO 40&O SEM F5 | 2 | 7 | 68 | 463 |
| 204TROY-NOREUS 35NW MO 40&O SEM F1 | 2 | 7 | 75 | 502 |
| 214TPCC-BARBA 35NW MO 40&O SEM F4 | 1 | 7 | 55 | 394 |
| 224LIFE-ANDERSON 35NW MO 40&O SEM F3 | 0 | 9 | 82 | 516 |
Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.
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 3.07 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.
Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.
| Marie Kim Lamb + Nancy Sinutko | 7–1 | 65% games | +11.0% vs expected |
| Joanne Gaines + Natalie Luke | 3–8 | 37% games | +4.4% vs expected |
| Natalie Luke + Diane Rusu | 24–17 | 54% games | +4.3% vs expected |
| Sheryl Eckert + Robyn Parrott | 12–12 | 51% games | +3.6% vs expected |
| Natalie Luke + Lisa Studzinski | 3–6 | 46% games | +3.1% vs expected |
| Marie Kim Lamb + Nancy Lamers | 15–7 | 55% games | −0.4% vs expected |
| Marie Kim Lamb + Diane Rusu | 4–3 | 45% games | −1.1% vs expected |
| Heidi Maglicic + Sheryl Eckert | 3–5 | 52% games | −1.2% vs expected |
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.
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.