Teams

Super Sac Sac

2023 Montgomery Tri-Level Mixed 18 & Over · Montgomery Tri-Level Mixed 10.0, 9.0, 8.0

17 players · average NTRP 4.81 / MARYLAND

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2023-12-12vs Hot ShotsLost 01
L#1 DoublesBartol Letica / Kaitlyn Heo vs Christian Taylor / Roxanne Henshall7-5, 1-6, 0-1
2023-10-29vs Hot ShotsWon 10
W#2 DoublesKaitlyn Heo / KHOURY ZIAD vs David Rosen / Cecilia Jones6-2, 6-0
2023-10-23vs My Kinda MischiefLost 01
L#1 DoublesBartol Letica / Kaitlyn Heo vs Mehrban Iranshad / Ashley Xie3-6, 2-6
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 standings for Montgomery Tri-Level Mixed 10.0, 9.0, 8.0 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 4.50 estimated across 15 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.

5.07
Inese Williamson
published 5
4.88
Austin Blake
published 5
4.81
4.81
Hayan Marouf
published 5
4.79
Angel Batkins
published 5
4.72
Kaitlyn Heo
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 5
4.65
Bartol Letica
published 5
4.49
Eve Helmer
usually #1 Doubles 57%, also #2 Doubles 29% · published 5
4.40
Matthew Geppi
usually #2 Doubles 57%, also #1 Doubles 43% · published 4.5
4.38
Jenna Hagood
published
4.30
Irene Chen
published 4.5
4.18
Michele Brammer
published
4.03
Heather Sine
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 4.5
3.96
KHOURY ZIAD
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 4.5
3.96
Sean Der
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #3 Doubles 40% · published 4.5
Jessica Lee
published
Yuji Ohno
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.

Matthew Geppi + Eve Helmer5170% gamesnot enough data
Sean Der + Eve Helmer404 matchesnot enough data
Heather Sine + KHOURY ZIAD303 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.

5
Inese Williamson
28W–15L career · no lines in 2023
<1%30%70%
5.07
5
Austin Blake
17W–6L career · no lines in 2023
<1%83%17%
4.88
5
Gregory Rabinovich
10W–4L career · no lines in 2023
1%92%7%
4.81
5
Hayan Marouf
10W–2L career · no lines in 2023
1%92%7%
4.81
5
Angel Batkins
13W–7L career · no lines in 2023
1%93%6%
4.79
5
Kaitlyn Heo
128W–63L career · 3 lines in 2023
5%94%1%
4.72
5
Bartol Letica
13W–6L career · no lines in 2023
12%88%<1%
4.65
5
Eve Helmer
276W–135L career · type D · 7 lines in 2023
53%47%<1%
4.49
4.5
Matthew Geppi
225W–81L career · 7 lines in 2023
<1%77%23%
4.40
Jenna Hagood
45W–9L career · no lines in 2023
<1%81%19%
4.38
4.5
Irene Chen
3W–0L career · no lines in 2023
1%92%7%
4.30
Michele Brammer
9W–8L career · no lines in 2023
8%91%1%
4.18
4.5
Heather Sine
293W–174L career · 6 lines in 2023
41%59%<1%
4.03
4.5
KHOURY ZIAD
238W–194L career · 6 lines in 2023
61%39%<1%
3.96
4.5
Sean Der
257W–135L career · 5 lines in 2023
62%38%<1%
3.96
Jessica Lee
2W–1L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Yuji Ohno
2W–1L 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.