Teams

FD 7.0 TP Lynch

2024 NEOTA Fusion Doubles · NEOTA 18&O 7.0 Fusion Doubles

15 players · average NTRP 3.17 / NORTHEASTERN OHIO

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 →
Flight standings13 teams · NEOTA 18&O 7.0 Fusion Doubles
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1FD 7.0 NC1 Bullach7118618184
2FD 7.0 MM Mei7218921200
3FD 7.0 MV2 Smith7219826251
4FD 7.0 CC2 Sobecks63151228244
5FD 7.0 PM Leohr53131128208
6FD 7.0 NC2 Paulino4415921187
7FD 7.0 CC1 Meisenbach45161130245
8FD 7.0 MV1 Connell45121535251
9FD 7.0 WR Downing45101740296
10FD 7.0 BR Sweeney3591533215
11FD 7.0 LT McKenzie36131431263
12FD 7.0 TP Lynch1751940260
13FD 7.0 PW Merugu1852247308

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 2.94 estimated across 10 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.

3.47
Troy Havens
published
3.16
Christine Norman
published 3.5
3.04
Heather Ahearn
published
2.99
Ronald Bassak
published
2.96
Ann Lynch
published 3
2.96
Sarah Cashman
published
2.83
Rebecca Voris
published
2.77
Brian Lambright
published 3
2.65
Jonathan Rash
published
2.62
Janel Ciolli
published
George Roth
published
Jamie Fox
published
Michael Terapane
published
Michelle Fox
published
Nathan Fisher
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.

George Roth + Troy Havens242351% games+6.4% vs expected
Janel Ciolli + Sarah Cashman0739% games+3.5% vs expected
Janel Ciolli + Rebecca Voris3352% games+3.5% vs expected
Michael Terapane + Brian Lambright5165% games+1.8% vs expected
Ann Lynch + Michelle Fox1442% games−2.2% vs expected
Jamie Fox + Michelle Fox1543% games−2.8% vs expected
Ann Lynch + Christine Norman3941% games−4.8% vs expected
Ann Lynch + Sarah Cashman3938% games−9.3% 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.

Troy Havens
77W–53L career · no lines in 2024
<1%60%40%
3.47
3.5
Christine Norman
40W–73L career · no lines in 2024
12%87%1%
3.16
Heather Ahearn
7W–20L career · no lines in 2024
40%60%<1%
3.04
Ronald Bassak
52W–95L career · no lines in 2024
52%48%<1%
2.99
3
Ann Lynch
155W–254L career · no lines in 2024
<1%62%38%
2.96
Sarah Cashman
71W–120L career · no lines in 2024
<1%62%38%
2.96
Rebecca Voris
51W–34L career · no lines in 2024
1%88%11%
2.83
3
Brian Lambright
84W–157L career · no lines in 2024
3%92%5%
2.77
Jonathan Rash
10W–12L career · no lines in 2024
15%85%1%
2.65
Janel Ciolli
110W–136L career · no lines in 2024
19%81%<1%
2.62
George Roth
47W–61L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
Jamie Fox
54W–53L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
Michael Terapane
45W–31L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
Michelle Fox
69W–151L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
Nathan Fisher
4W–5L career · no lines in 2024
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.