Teams

City Park-Lamay

2025 · 26 NEGTA USTA Adult 55 & Over - Fall

10 players · average NTRP 3.33 / GEORGIA

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2025-11-03Lost 01
L#3 DoublesEllen Belknap / Debbie Smith vs Lynn Odum / Lisa Dempsey1-6, 3-6
2025-10-20Lost 01
L#1 DoublesEllen Belknap / Kimberly Johnson vs Jeannine Callahan / Barbara Griffeth1-6, 1-6
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 standings3 teams · 26 NEGTA USTA Adult 55 & Over - Fall
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1NEGTA/Ginger Jakins60162798
2CCC-Causey2481023160
3City Park-Lamay1551328191

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 3.16 estimated across 9 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.

3.53
Martha Darby
usually #1 Doubles 37%, also #3 Doubles 32% · published
3.42
Lynda Rollins
usually #2 Doubles 46%, also #1 Doubles 23% · published
3.37
Lesley Melson
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
Debbie Smith
published 3.5
3.16
Alice Beach
usually #1 Doubles 54%, also #4 Doubles 15% · published 3.5
3.10
Elcira Pinkerton
usually #1 Singles 47%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published 3.5
3.01
Ellen Belknap
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
2.98
Carmen Hermes
usually #4 Doubles 31%, also #3 Doubles 31% · published 3
2.95
Alison Lamay
usually #4 Doubles 44%, also #3 Doubles 31% · published 3
2.92
Polly Bennett
usually #3 Doubles 46%, also #2 Doubles 27% · 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.

Alison Lamay + Carmen Hermes6850% games+3.2% vs expected
Alison Lamay + Martha Darby5352% games+1.4% vs expected
Lesley Melson + Martha Darby161056% games−1.1% vs expected
Lynda Rollins + Martha Darby6255% games−4.2% vs expected
Carmen Hermes + Polly Bennett4448% gamesnot enough data
Lesley Melson + Alison Lamay134 matchesnot enough data
Lynda Rollins + Polly Bennett134 matchesnot enough data
Lesley Melson + Carmen Hermes123 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.

Martha Darby
83W–47L career · 19 lines in 2026
<1%40%60%
3.53
Lynda Rollins
30W–15L career · 13 lines in 2026
<1%72%28%
3.42
Lesley Melson
58W–34L career · 12 lines in 2026
<1%84%15%
3.37
3.5
Debbie Smith
9W–7L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
3.5
Alice Beach
20W–30L career · 13 lines in 2026
11%88%<1%
3.16
3.5
Elcira Pinkerton
24W–40L career · 15 lines in 2026
22%78%<1%
3.10
3.5
Ellen Belknap
0W–3L career · 2 lines in 2026
47%53%<1%
3.01
3
Carmen Hermes
59W–55L career · type A · 16 lines in 2026
<1%58%42%
2.98
3
Alison Lamay
28W–42L career · type A · 16 lines in 2026
<1%66%34%
2.95
Polly Bennett
7W–23L career · 11 lines in 2026
<1%74%26%
2.92

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.