Teams

Forest Lakes Net Girls-Leary

2024 Charlottesville Adult Other 55 Doubles · Charlottesville Adult Other 55 Doubles 7.0 Women

7 players · average NTRP 3.25 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule9 played
2024-11-15vs ACAC ElyWon 10
W#3 DoublesMaggie Leary / Elizabeth Gunnels vs Susan Bayliss / Jan Carroll6-3, 7-5
2024-11-01Won 10
W#3 DoublesElizabeth Gunnels / Lisa Marshall vs N/A6-0, 6-0
2024-10-25vs Glenmore-LongLost 01
L#1 DoublesMaggie Leary / Elizabeth Gunnels vs Virginia Bowie / Sallee Bowser4-6, 7-6, 1-0
2024-10-23Won 10
W#3 DoublesElizabeth Gunnels / Michelle Ruiz vs Deborah Smith / Chris Bailey6-4, 6-3
2024-10-18vs ACAC ElyLost 01
L#1 DoublesMaggie Leary / Judith Divita vs Jan Carroll / Debbie Shpigler6-7, 6-2, 0-1
2024-10-11vs BHSC-HapgoodSplit 11
W#1 DoublesSusie Abramson / Lisa Marshall vs Allison Ewing / Amy Taggart7-6, 5-7, 1-0
L#3 DoublesElizabeth Gunnels / Belinda Prittie vs Mary Anne Burns / Cathie Ricketts3-6, 6-0, 0-1
2024-10-04vs Glenmore-LongLost 02
L#1 DoublesSusie Abramson / Lisa Marshall vs Marcy MacGovern / Donna Horn4-6, 4-6
L#2 DoublesElizabeth Gunnels / Michelle Ruiz vs Patti Rowe / Catherine Haney6-1, 0-6, 0-1
2024-09-20vs BHSC-HapgoodLost 01
L#1 DoublesJudith Divita / Elizabeth Gunnels vs Amy Taggart / Merrily Main D'Arpino3-6, 3-6
2024-09-13Split 11
L#1 DoublesTerry Roberts / Judith Divita vs Diana Ferguson / Kathleen Long1-6, 4-6
W#3 DoublesElizabeth Gunnels / Maggie Leary vs N/A6-0, 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 standings for Charlottesville Adult Other 55 Doubles 7.0 Women 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 2.86 estimated across 6 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.

3.24
Susie Abramson
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.10
Judith Divita
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
2.93
Elizabeth Gunnels
usually #3 Doubles 63%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 3
2.68
Belinda Prittie
published 3
2.62
Judy Roy
published
2.58
Terry Roberts
published
Maggie Leary
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.

Judith Divita + Elizabeth Gunnels2846% games−4.1% vs expected
Judith Divita + Susie Abramson61049% games−7.6% 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
Susie Abramson
32W–33L career · 2 lines in 2024
4%93%3%
3.24
3.5
Judith Divita
56W–126L career · 3 lines in 2024
24%76%<1%
3.10
3
Elizabeth Gunnels
94W–92L career · 8 lines in 2024
<1%70%30%
2.93
3
Belinda Prittie
1W–7L career · no lines in 2024
9%89%1%
2.68
Judy Roy
2W–8L career · no lines in 2024
19%80%<1%
2.62
Terry Roberts
4W–12L career · no lines in 2024
28%72%<1%
2.58
Maggie Leary
0W–1L career · no lines in 2024
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.