Teams

CDTA E 18&O W/E 3.0W Heritage Werts Sat 3 $21

CDTA ESL 18 & Over W · E

13 players · average NTRP 3.10 / CHICAGO

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 →
Schedule7 played
W#1 DoublesYing Guo / Julie Savanelli vs Allison Milmoe / Baujun Liu6-4, 3-4, 1-0
L#2 DoublesLinda Murphy / Julie Carr vs Yan Gao / Ann Wachter6-7, 1-2
L#1 SinglesElena Chang vs Jessica Moyer6-2, 5-7, 0-1
W#2 DoublesLeanne Whitlock / Linda Murphy vs Carol Swanson / Judith Frank4-6, 6-4, 1-0
L#3 DoublesShari Rabin / Janice Turner vs Sharon Scherer / Kristin Wittman1-6, 4-6
W#2 DoublesLinda Murphy / Elena Chang vs Katherine Cassou / Elizabeth Duke6-0, 6-2
L#3 DoublesJanice Turner / Julie Carr vs Karin Steinbrueck / CHRISTINE TAN4-6, 3-6
W#1 DoublesYing Guo / Elena Chang vs Laura Otto / Sandra Villa7-6, 6-5
L#2 DoublesJulie Savanelli / Leanne Whitlock vs Meghan Kostyk / Mindy Greer4-6, 6-4, 0-1
L#3 DoublesEvelyn Toreja / Janice Turner vs Rosie Weaver / Alissa Goldwasser4-6, 1-6
L#1 DoublesEvelyn Toreja / Leanne Whitlock vs Stacey Watson / Pamela Jackson4-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesJulie Carr / Shari Rabin vs Cathi Cappas / Stacey Crossman3-6, 1-6
W#1 SinglesElena Chang vs Jamie Gorey6-4, 6-1
W#2 DoublesYing Guo / Linda Murphy vs Patty Ohle / Yuri Tam7-5, 6-5
W#1 SinglesElena Chang vs Karen Plachy2-6, 6-4, 1-0
W#2 DoublesLinda Murphy / Leanne Whitlock vs Pamela Niro / Suzanne Nagel6-4, 6-2
L#3 DoublesJulie Carr / Karen Lindquist vs Beverly Vacval / Gabrielle Esposito2-6, 1-6
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 standings11 teams · E
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1CDTA E 18&O W/E 3.0W MT Chi Brown 1 Sun 2 $259132823263
2CDTA E 18&O W/E 3.0W S Barrington Burns Sat 11 $2082281228272
3CDTA E 18&O W/E 3.0W River Trails Cox Sun 6 $2082251537301
4CDTA E 18&O W/E 3.0W MT Bann Gordon Sun 12 $2564221839296
5CDTA E 18&O W/E 3.0W MT Chi Brown 2 Sat 6 $2555211940290
6CDTA E 18&O W/E 3.0W Tam Wolff Sun 3 $2055231743341
7CDTA E 18&O W/E 3.0W Heritage Werts Sat 3 $2155182248353
8CDTA E 18&O W/E 3.0W MT Pal Watson Sun 1 $2546202047353
9CDTA E 18&O W/E 3.0W Centennial Wissig Sun 5 $2046152555366
10CDTA E 18&O W/E 3.0W MT Pal Lange Sat 2 $2519122861396
11CDTA E 18&O W/E 3.0W Glenbrook Turdo Sun 3 $2501043674465

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 2.87 estimated across 8 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.

3.40
Patricia Lozada
usually #3 Doubles 42%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
3.35
Nicole Perso
usually #1 Doubles 44%, also #3 Doubles 22% · published
3.19
Elena Chang
usually #1 Singles 60%, also #1 Doubles 20% · published 3.5
2.92
Leanne Whitlock
published 3
2.63
Karen Lindquist
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.63
Evelyn Toreja
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 3
2.50
Jill Werts
published 3
2.30
Shari Rabin
published 3
Janice Turner
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Julie Carr
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
Julie Savanelli
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
Linda Murphy
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Ying Guo
usually #1 Doubles 43%, also #3 Doubles 29% · 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.

Patricia Lozada + Nicole Perso8950% games−0.7% vs expected
Julie Carr + Jill Werts01242% gamesnot enough data
Ying Guo + Patricia Lozada5454% gamesnot enough data
Patricia Lozada + Jill Werts0840% gamesnot enough data
Leanne Whitlock + Nicole Perso2441% gamesnot enough data
Janice Turner + Julie Carr1440% gamesnot enough data
Julie Savanelli + Jill Werts3254% gamesnot enough data
Shari Rabin + Jill Werts1438% gamesnot 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.

Patricia Lozada
164W–140L career · 12 lines in 2022
<1%77%23%
3.40
Nicole Perso
87W–63L career · 9 lines in 2022
<1%88%12%
3.35
3.5
Elena Chang
81W–49L career · 5 lines in 2022
8%92%1%
3.19
3
Leanne Whitlock
83W–88L career · no lines in 2022
<1%72%28%
2.92
Karen Lindquist
13W–67L career · 2 lines in 2022
15%85%<1%
2.63
3
Evelyn Toreja
13W–25L career · 2 lines in 2022
17%83%<1%
2.63
3
Jill Werts
81W–179L career · type A · no lines in 2022
51%49%<1%
2.50
3
Shari Rabin
16W–34L career · no lines in 2022
93%7%<1%
2.30
Janice Turner
7W–39L career · 3 lines in 2022
not enough data
Julie Carr
4W–19L career · 4 lines in 2022
not enough data
Julie Savanelli
76W–55L career · 2 lines in 2022
not enough data
Linda Murphy
8W–14L career · 5 lines in 2022
not enough data
Ying Guo
45W–30L career · 7 lines in 2022
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.