← Teams

Hanus/Rogers/PCC

2025 Adult Singles 40 & Over · 3.0 Women

7 players · average NTRP 3.00 / ARKANSAS

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2026-02-15vs Evans/Fayetteville/FACWon 2–1
W#1 SinglesMarjorie Hanus vs Brandy Long4-6, 7-6, 1-0
W#2 SinglesSally Beemsterboer vs Misti Lira6-1, 6-1
L#3 SinglesKimberly Larsen vs Jena Newman1-6, 1-6
2026-01-31vs Geduldig/Rogers/SVCCLost 1–2
W#1 SinglesTaylor Holley vs Alisha Rohlwing3-6, 6-4, 1-0
L#2 SinglesKimberly Larsen vs Jill Marley4-6, 2-6
L#3 SinglesSally Beemsterboer vs Christy Williams6-4, 4-6, 0-1
2026-01-10vs Bertram/Fayetteville/SRCWon 2–1
W#1 SinglesLisa Bores vs Sherry Carpenter6-1, 6-2
L#2 SinglesTaylor Holley vs Cynthia Meullenet2-6, 2-6
W#3 SinglesCourtney Naudo vs Leigh Verucchi6-2, 6-4
2026-01-04vs King/Fayetteville/FACLost 1–2
L#1 SinglesLisa Bores vs Jenna Donnell6-7, 1-6
L#2 SinglesDondi Sanders vs Melissa King3-6, 7-5, 0-1
W#3 SinglesSally Beemsterboer vs April Rucker6-2, 5-7, 1-0
2025-11-17vs Paulk/Centerton/INDWon 2–1
L#1 SinglesDondi Sanders vs Andrea Trout5-7, 1-6
W#2 SinglesLisa Bores vs Ashley Crouch6-1, 7-6
W#3 SinglesMarjorie Hanus vs Jeanalyn Le7-6, 6-3
2025-11-05vs Wallace/Bella Vista/INDWon 3–0
W#1 SinglesDondi Sanders vs Elizabeth Wallace6-1, 6-0
W#2 SinglesMarjorie Hanus vs Sydney Flaig6-3, 4-6, 1-0
W#3 SinglesTaylor Holley vs Barbara Taylor6-4, 6-2
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 Women 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 2.79 estimated across 7 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.

2.96
Marjorie Hanus
usually #2 Singles 33%, also #1 Singles 33% · published —
2.90
Lisa Bores
usually #1 Singles 67%, also #2 Singles 33% · published —
2.90
Dondi Sanders
usually #1 Singles 67%, also #2 Singles 33% · published 3
2.80
Sally Beemsterboer
usually #3 Singles 67%, also #2 Singles 33% · published —
2.77
Taylor Holley
usually #3 Singles 33%, also #1 Singles 33% · published —
2.64
Kimberly Larsen
usually #3 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 50% · published —
2.54
Courtney Naudo
usually #3 Singles 100% · published 3
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.

Marjorie Hanus + Dondi Sanders16–759% games+9.5% 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.

—
Marjorie Hanus
29W–21L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%61%39%
2.96
—
Lisa Bores
12W–10L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%77%23%
2.90
3
Dondi Sanders
34W–30L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%78%22%
2.90
—
Sally Beemsterboer
17W–18L career · 3 lines in 2025
1%93%6%
2.80
—
Taylor Holley
6W–9L career · 3 lines in 2025
2%94%4%
2.77
—
Kimberly Larsen
9W–24L career · 2 lines in 2025
15%85%<1%
2.64
3
Courtney Naudo
1W–6L career · type S · 1 line in 2025
39%61%<1%
2.54

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.