← Teams

Bergeson-Smart Aces-Bentwater

2024 Adult Tri-Level NoHo Women · 3.0

15 players · average NTRP 3.50 / TEXAS

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2024-11-13vs Parry-Casual Sets-KCCLost 0–2
L#1 DoublesBridget Seals / Brenda Palamar vs Elissa Fontenot / Jill Stofa4-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesAmy Hayden / Lisa Kassuba vs Courtney Lees / Jenny Carroll0-6, 0-6
2024-11-06vs Suss-Tri Hards-Woodlands ParksWon 2–1
W#1 DoublesViktoria Mategrano / Christina Flowers vs Mary Lou Suss / Dolores Cos6-3, 1-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesMartha Vogel / Lynn Arthur vs Catriona Edmond / Season Flannery4-6, 6-4, 1-0
L#3 DoublesStacee Verkon / Amy Hayden vs Shana Dillon / Colleen Ayres2-6, 6-4, 0-1
2024-10-23vs Parry-Casual Sets-KCCLost 1–2
L#1 DoublesMartha Vogel / Christina Flowers vs Tara Kelley / Kelly Cossum6-1, 3-6, 0-1
L#2 DoublesTerri Spieth / Lynn Arthur vs Courtney Lees / Stacey Emmons3-6, 5-7
W#3 DoublesStacee Verkon / Amy Hayden vs Brittany Love / Heather Miller6-4, 6-4
2024-10-16vs Suss-Tri Hards-Woodlands ParksLost 1–2
W#1 DoublesViktoria Mategrano / Deanne Mittlesteadt vs Saba Kenny / Valeria Vizcardo6-4, 7-5
L#2 DoublesWalty Sample / Bridget Seals vs Tina Weber / Rachel Polsky6-7, 3-6
L#3 DoublesDiana LaDoe / Lisa Kassuba vs Loree Heckt / Colleen Ayres2-6, 2-6
2024-10-02vs Parry-Casual Sets-KCCWon 2–1
L#1 DoublesDeanne Mittlesteadt / Martha Vogel vs Tara Kelley / Jenny Carroll1-6, 6-7
W#2 DoublesLynn Arthur / Bridget Seals vs Thuy Tran / Stacey Emmons6-2, 7-5
W#3 DoublesAmy Hayden / Stacee Verkon vs Anne-Marie Kapoor / Kelly Krenzke6-4, 6-1
2024-09-25vs Suss-Tri Hards-Woodlands ParksLost 1–2
L#1 DoublesBrenda Palamar / Lynn Arthur vs Mary Lou Suss / Valeria Vizcardo3-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesBridget Seals / Walty Sample vs Season Flannery / Brionna Mayr1-6, 6-4, 0-1
W#3 DoublesLisa Brown / Danielle Mendes vs Hillary Zuniga / Colleen Ayres7-5, 5-7, 1-0
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 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 3.06 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.

—
Christina Flowers
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.44
Viktoria Mategrano
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published —
3.38
Deanne Mittlesteadt
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.35
Lynn Arthur
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published —
3.34
Brenda Palamar
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.31
Martha Vogel
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published —
—
Bridget Seals
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.20
Terri Spieth
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published —
2.94
Amy Hayden
usually #3 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
2.93
Kelly Bergeson
published —
2.88
Danielle Mendes
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.75
Stacee Verkon
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published —
2.61
Lisa Kassuba
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published —
2.56
Diana LaDoe
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
—
Walty Sample
usually #2 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.

Lisa Kassuba + Stacee Verkon3–651% games+11.0% vs expected
Diana LaDoe + Kelly Bergeson2–444% games+2.4% vs expected
Lynn Arthur + Brenda Palamar4–353% games+1.7% vs expected
Martha Vogel + Lynn Arthur5–251% games−0.5% vs expected
Diana LaDoe + Stacee Verkon2–444% gamesnot enough data
Amy Hayden + Stacee Verkon5–163% gamesnot enough data
Martha Vogel + Deanne Mittlesteadt2–344% gamesnot enough data
Martha Vogel + Kelly Bergeson3–246% gamesnot 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
Christina Flowers
3W–5L career · 2 lines in 2024
not enough data
—
—
Viktoria Mategrano
9W–15L career · 2 lines in 2024
68%32%<1%
3.44
4
Deanne Mittlesteadt
8W–20L career · 2 lines in 2024
83%17%<1%
3.38
—
Lynn Arthur
22W–22L career · 4 lines in 2024
<1%88%12%
3.35
3.5
Brenda Palamar
18W–27L career · 2 lines in 2024
<1%89%10%
3.34
—
Martha Vogel
21W–17L career · 3 lines in 2024
1%92%7%
3.31
3.5
Bridget Seals
9W–17L career · 4 lines in 2024
not enough data
—
—
Terri Spieth
10W–16L career · 1 line in 2024
6%93%1%
3.20
3.5
Amy Hayden
8W–14L career · 4 lines in 2024
68%32%<1%
2.94
—
Kelly Bergeson
16W–18L career · no lines in 2024
70%30%<1%
2.93
3
Danielle Mendes
7W–9L career · 1 line in 2024
<1%81%19%
2.88
—
Stacee Verkon
17W–22L career · 3 lines in 2024
3%95%3%
2.75
—
Lisa Kassuba
5W–17L career · 2 lines in 2024
20%80%<1%
2.61
3
Diana LaDoe
12W–20L career · 1 line in 2024
32%67%<1%
2.56
—
Walty Sample
11W–10L career · 2 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.