Teams

Aged to Perfection

2025 55 & OVER Mixed Doubles · 7.0

8 players · average NTRP 3.00 / TEXAS

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
2025-09-21vs JNCC Silver WingsLost 03
L#1 DoublesSara Folmar / Jason Nydegger vs Amy Flowers / Dean Fredrick1-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesDianne Moe / Michael Saylor vs Phillip Fields / Teresa Mirarchi2-6, 5-7
L#3 DoublesDoreen Amft / Nando Gonzalez vs Leslie Anderson / Mark Grove3-6, 1-6
2025-09-21vs JNCC Silver WingsSplit 11
W#1 DoublesGina Jones / Matthew Muddiman vs Robyn Clement / Stephen Lyssy6-4, 7-5
L#2 DoublesDoreen Amft / Nando Gonzalez vs Dean Fredrick / Leslie Anderson1-6, 4-6
2025-08-31vs JNCC Silver WingsLost 02
L#1 DoublesNando Gonzalez / Dianne Moe vs Stephen Lyssy / Kristi Bertelsman0-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesMatthew Muddiman / Gina Jones vs Michael Jones / Erica Jones2-6, 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 standings for 7.0 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 2.96 estimated across 8 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.

3.19
Michael Saylor
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.16
Sara Folmar
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.13
Matthew Muddiman
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.04
Nando Gonzalez
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
3.00
Karen Gauthier
published
2.92
Jason Nydegger
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.67
Doreen Amft
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3
2.58
Dianne Moe
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · 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.

Matthew Muddiman + Dianne Moe044 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.

Michael Saylor
16W–13L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%8%92%
3.19
Sara Folmar
18W–10L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%11%89%
3.16
Matthew Muddiman
11W–24L career · 2 lines in 2025
16%84%<1%
3.13
Nando Gonzalez
18W–39L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%39%61%
3.04
Karen Gauthier
21W–9L career · no lines in 2025
<1%51%49%
3.00
Jason Nydegger
5W–9L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%72%28%
2.92
3
Doreen Amft
18W–28L career · 2 lines in 2025
10%90%1%
2.67
3
Dianne Moe
20W–43L career · 2 lines in 2025
26%74%<1%
2.58

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.