Teams

Peterson

2023 Adult 40 & Over · Women 3.5 DAY

16 players · average NTRP 3.67 / ST. LOUIS

View scouting list →
Schedule7 played
2023-07-18vs Stobie/CauseyLost 01
L#1 SinglesAndrea Torf vs Nancy Tulloch1-6, 1-6
2023-07-11vs Coomes/BleyerLost 12
L#1 DoublesRebecca Welton / Michelle Millonas vs Lindsay Fleming / Kristina Hanley1-6, 3-6
W#2 DoublesKaren Toal / Joanne Langan vs Maria Coomes / Heather Koenig7-5, 6-1
L#3 DoublesAndrea Torf / Julie Dalton vs Barbara Kahn / Adele Ayres7-6, 2-4, 1-0
2023-06-27vs Borghi/SteinhartLost 01
L#2 DoublesRebecca Welton / Lisa Jett vs Jennifer Kunzi / Laurie Walden2-6, 2-6
2023-06-20vs Moore/ThomasSplit 11
W#2 DoublesJoanne Langan / Rebecca Welton vs Melissa Butler / Kristina Reilly6-2, 6-3
L#3 DoublesJulie Dalton / Cara Hugo vs Patricia Thomas / Jennifer Carrico3-6, 5-7
2023-06-13vs Heitz/EvekerLost 01
L#3 DoublesCara Hugo / Karen Toal vs Louann Boyd / Rebecca Engelbrecht6-4, 5-5, 0-1
2023-06-06vs Bryan/YalavarthiLost 12
W#1 DoublesFrances Epplin / Joanne Langan vs Nancy Kraemer / Mary Alice Grady7-6, 1-4, 1-0
L#2 DoublesRebecca Welton / Julie Dalton vs Amy Fikes / Laura Boeker1-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesSusan Farn / Cara Hugo vs Mary Handley / Maggie Desai5-7, 0-6
2023-05-02vs Blake/EldridgeSplit 11
L#1 SinglesAndrea Torf vs Cary Eldridge1-6, 2-6
W#2 DoublesJoanne Langan / Frances Epplin vs Lynn Dole / Carren Rogan6-4, 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 standings8 teams · Women 3.5 DAY
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Bryan/Yalavarthi52161227219
2Heitz/Eveker52171127249
3Borghi/Steinhart43151328226
4Stobie/Causey43141431234
5Coomes/Bleyer34161230255
6Blake/Eldridge34121633264
7Peterson25121633250
8Moore/Thomas25101838275

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 3.21 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.

4.20
Erica Peterson
usually #3 Doubles 40%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published 4.5
3.42
Michelle Millonas
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
3.33
Frances Epplin
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 17% · published 3.5
3.28
Lydia Sanders
usually #1 Doubles 47%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published
Amy Milton
usually #2 Doubles 57%, also #3 Doubles 14% · published 3.5
Cara Hugo
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
Esther Cohen
usually #3 Doubles 60%, also #1 Singles 40% · published 3.5
3.24
Michelle Waller
usually #1 Singles 83%, also #1 Doubles 17% · published
3.14
Joanne Langan
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published
3.14
Tina McWard
usually #1 Doubles 62%, also #3 Doubles 39% · published
3.04
Rebecca Welton
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published
2.97
Karen Toal
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
2.96
Andrea Torf
usually #1 Singles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
2.94
Susan Farn
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.87
Julie Dalton
usually #3 Doubles 78%, also #2 Doubles 22% · published
Lisa Jett
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.

Julie Dalton + Amy Milton4164% games+7.5% vs expected
Julie Dalton + Frances Epplin5458% games+5.3% vs expected
Joanne Langan + Frances Epplin20564% games+4.7% vs expected
Rebecca Welton + Tina McWard101051% games+4.5% vs expected
Michelle Millonas + Michelle Waller14457% games+3.1% vs expected
Andrea Torf + Frances Epplin7353% games+2.6% vs expected
Frances Epplin + Tina McWard141054% games+2.3% vs expected
Michelle Millonas + Susan Farn4451% games+2.1% 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.

4.5
Erica Peterson
89W–42L career · 5 lines in 2023
6%93%1%
4.20
Michelle Millonas
193W–168L career · 12 lines in 2023
<1%74%26%
3.42
3.5
Frances Epplin
200W–105L career · 6 lines in 2023
<1%89%10%
3.33
Lydia Sanders
109W–166L career · 15 lines in 2023
2%94%4%
3.28
3.5
Amy Milton
15W–13L career · 7 lines in 2023
not enough data
3.5
Cara Hugo
6W–8L career · 3 lines in 2023
not enough data
3.5
Esther Cohen
12W–26L career · 5 lines in 2023
not enough data
Michelle Waller
107W–70L career · 6 lines in 2023
3%95%2%
3.24
Joanne Langan
77W–60L career · 4 lines in 2023
14%85%<1%
3.14
Tina McWard
163W–156L career · 13 lines in 2023
15%85%<1%
3.14
Rebecca Welton
78W–81L career · 4 lines in 2023
37%63%<1%
3.04
Karen Toal
120W–142L career · 2 lines in 2023
58%42%<1%
2.97
3.5
Andrea Torf
61W–104L career · type A · 3 lines in 2023
61%39%<1%
2.96
Susan Farn
102W–149L career · 3 lines in 2023
69%31%<1%
2.94
Julie Dalton
69W–80L career · 9 lines in 2023
<1%84%16%
2.87
Lisa Jett
29W–18L career · no lines in 2023
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.