Teams

Suntree - Saunders

2022 Brevard Trilevel · 3.0

11 players · average NTRP 3.67 / REGION_4

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2022-10-16vs TTC - TaylorLost 01
L#3 DoublesDarien Lawrence / Nancy Hastings vs Janis Mena / Suzanne Taylor7-6, 3-6, 0-1
2022-10-02vs Brevard/Desoto - LauSplit 11
L#2 DoublesNancy Fischer / Amira Tolles vs Amy McIntosh / Sara Hatfield2-6, 5-7
W#3 DoublesNancy Hastings / Mandy Smith vs Carol Whalen / Suzanne Kube6-2, 6-7, 1-0
2022-09-25vs TTC - TaylorWon 20
W#2 DoublesNancy Fischer / Sharon Bean vs Lynne Schettino-DeFelice / Emily Criste6-4, 6-4
W#3 DoublesAmira Tolles / Mandy Smith vs Suzanne Taylor / Karen Kelly6-1, 6-2
2022-08-28vs TTC - TaylorSplit 11
L#2 DoublesNancy Fischer / Dana Saunders vs Carol Becker / Lynne Schettino-DeFelice4-6, 5-7
W#3 DoublesAmira Tolles / Nancy Hastings vs June Leiter / Janis Mena6-1, 6-1
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 3.0 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 3.25 estimated across 11 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.

3.71
Amira Tolles
usually #3 Doubles 88%, also #2 Doubles 13% · published 4
3.61
Margaret Staples
usually #1 Doubles 71%, also #2 Doubles 29% · published 4
3.57
Amy Gregory
published 4
3.35
Sandra Rowe
published
3.21
Nancy Charitat
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
3.18
Dana Saunders
published 3.5
3.15
Sharon Bean
published
3.13
Darien Lawrence
published 3.5
3.13
Nancy Fischer
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.87
Nancy Hastings
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.80
Mandy Smith
usually #3 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.

Margaret Staples + Amira Tolles4452% games+6.2% vs expected
Nancy Fischer + Mandy Smith3745% gamesnot enough data
Sandra Rowe + Nancy Fischer044 matchesnot enough data
Nancy Fischer + Nancy Charitat303 matchesnot enough data
Nancy Charitat + Margaret Staples123 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.

4
Amira Tolles
91W–33L career · 8 lines in 2022
5%94%1%
3.71
4
Margaret Staples
81W–97L career · 7 lines in 2022
20%80%<1%
3.61
4
Amy Gregory
1W–4L career · no lines in 2022
29%71%<1%
3.57
Sandra Rowe
11W–14L career · no lines in 2022
<1%87%12%
3.35
Nancy Charitat
101W–49L career · 4 lines in 2022
6%93%1%
3.21
3.5
Dana Saunders
11W–17L career · no lines in 2022
9%91%1%
3.18
Sharon Bean
2W–1L career · no lines in 2022
12%88%<1%
3.15
3.5
Darien Lawrence
3W–5L career · no lines in 2022
16%84%<1%
3.13
Nancy Fischer
67W–70L career · 3 lines in 2022
16%84%<1%
3.13
3
Nancy Hastings
108W–120L career · 3 lines in 2022
<1%85%15%
2.87
Mandy Smith
90W–80L career · 2 lines in 2022
1%93%6%
2.80

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.