Teams

Fossils & Foxes

2021 USTA MIXED 40 & OVER · 8.0 Mixed 40 & Over

7 players · average NTRP 4.20 / MONTANA

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 →
Schedule3 played
2021-08-07vs QualifyingWon 21
W#1 DoublesMary Ritchie / Raymond Armstrong vs Paige Darden / Chris Mintague6-2, 6-2
L#2 DoublesSarah Bach / Michael Turley vs Scott Hanson / Cyndy Desin4-6, 4-6
W#3 DoublesAmber Sparks / Chuck Smith vs Johncarl Rogge / Laura Rembe1-6, 6-4, 1-0
2021-08-06vs QualifyingWon 30
W#1 DoublesAmber Sparks / Raymond Armstrong vs Paige Darden / Chris Mintague7-6, 6-0
W#2 DoublesDanielle Smith / Chuck Smith vs Andrew Mattie / Laura Rembe6-3, 6-2
W#3 DoublesMary Ritchie / Michael Turley vs Johncarl Rogge / Cyndy Desin2-6, 6-3, 1-0
2021-08-06vs QualifyingWon 21
W#1 DoublesSarah Bach / Michael Turley vs Paige Darden / Chris Mintague3-6, 6-4, 1-0
W#2 DoublesAmber Sparks / Chuck Smith vs Andrew Mattie / Laura Rembe6-3, 6-0
L#3 DoublesRaymond Armstrong / Danielle Smith vs Cyndy Desin / Johncarl Rogge3-6, 6-7
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 standings2 teams · 8.0 Mixed 40 & Over
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Fossils & Foxes3072772
2Qualifying03271493

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 4.00 estimated across 4 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.

4.19
Mary Ritchie
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 4.5
4.15
Amber Sparks
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 4.5
3.89
Sarah Bach
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.78
Danielle Smith
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 4
Chuck Smith
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 4
Michael Turley
usually #2 Doubles 33%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
Raymond Armstrong
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · 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.

Danielle Smith + Raymond Armstrong033 matchesnot enough data
Raymond Armstrong + Sarah Bach213 matchesnot enough data
Mary Ritchie + Michael Turley213 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.

4.5
Mary Ritchie
37W–57L career · 2 lines in 2021
8%92%1%
4.19
4.5
Amber Sparks
54W–16L career · 3 lines in 2021
12%88%<1%
4.15
4
Sarah Bach
59W–54L career · 2 lines in 2021
<1%80%20%
3.89
4
Danielle Smith
59W–50L career · 2 lines in 2021
2%94%4%
3.78
4
Chuck Smith
5W–3L career · type S · 3 lines in 2021
not enough data
Michael Turley
10W–19L career · 3 lines in 2021
not enough data
Raymond Armstrong
12W–20L career · 3 lines in 2021
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.