NWO 40&Over 3.0W Abodeely/Hanus-Springfield
2026 NWO Adult 40 & Over · NWO Adult 40 & Over 3.0 Women
13 players · average NTRP 3.00 / NORTHWESTERN OHIO
No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.
Schedule10 played
i
Flight standings15 teams · NWO Adult 40 & Over 3.0 Women
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1NWO 40&Over 3.0W Willis/Klink-Findlay CC | 10 | 0 | 27 | 279 |
| 2NWO 40&Over 3.0W Abodeely/Hanus-Springfield | 9 | 1 | 27 | 312 |
| 3NWO 40&Over 3.0W Glosser/Worth-Jermain | 8 | 2 | 38 | 353 |
| 4NWO 40&Over 3.0W Modlin/Gralak-SVC | 7 | 3 | 27 | 280 |
| 5NWO 40&Over 3.0W Burns/Snyder- PTC | 7 | 3 | 36 | 323 |
| 6NWO 40&Over 3.0W Middaugh/Cunningham-PTC | 7 | 3 | 49 | 419 |
| 7NWO 40&Over 3.0W Cousino/Fisher Bedford | 4 | 4 | 50 | 367 |
| 8NWO 40&Over 3.0W Wimberly/Olson-Belmont | 4 | 5 | 48 | 359 |
| 9NWO 40&Over 3.0W Roberts-Stone Oak | 4 | 6 | 64 | 425 |
| 10NWO 40&Over 3.0W Myers/Schultz-FT | 4 | 6 | 70 | 472 |
| 11NWO 40&Over 3.0W Souder/Kowalczyk-inverness | 3 | 5 | 60 | 413 |
| 12NWO 40&Over 3.0W Hustwick-TTC | 3 | 7 | 77 | 506 |
| 13NWO 40&Over 3.0W Alexander/ Skiver-Ottawa Hills | 1 | 8 | 72 | 473 |
| 14NWO 40&Over 3.0W Crawford-PTC | 1 | 9 | 77 | 531 |
| 15NWO 40&Over 3.0W Bryant/Karamol-SVC | 0 | 10 | 82 | 524 |
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 2.86 estimated across 12 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.
| Barbara Cleveland + Beverly Bundy | 4–4 | 48% games | +14.2% vs expected |
| Amy Abodeely + Barbara Cleveland | 8–2 | 64% games | +10.3% vs expected |
| Danielle Garcia + Nancy Wermer | 9–1 | 67% games | +9.6% vs expected |
| Emily Atherine + Angela Pitt | 47–27 | 56% games | +3.2% vs expected |
| Amy Abodeely + Michelle Hanus | 21–23 | 50% games | +2.0% vs expected |
| Michelle Hanus + Danielle Garcia | 1–6 | 29% games | −8.2% vs expected |
| Cathleen Smith-Lee + Marie Anderson | 3–6 | 43% games | not enough data |
| Cathleen Smith-Lee + Nancy Wermer | 5–1 | 60% games | not enough data |
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.