← Teams

VTC-Mills/John

2025 Adult 40 & Over · 3.5 Women

7 players · average NTRP 3.5 · USTA/PACIFIC NW / NORTHERN OREGON

View scouting list →
Scouting

Roster averages 3.21 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.

3.32
Puntrigar Suriyaseang
usually #1 Singles 60%, also #1 Doubles 20% · published 3.5
3.28
Lynne Nieda
usually #3 Doubles 57%, also #2 Doubles 29% · published 3.5
3.24
Janet Mills
usually #3 Doubles 44%, also #2 Doubles 22% · published 3.5
3.19
Kyra John
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.19
Heidi Palena
usually #2 Doubles 56%, also #3 Doubles 22% · published 3.5
3.19
Jenny Pizot
usually #3 Doubles 80%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published 3.5
3.09
Lisa Provost
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
Results8 ties
2025-03-16Won 3–0
W#1 DoublesJanet Mills / Sue Edmonds vs Carolyn Bachhuber / Catherine Leedy1-6, 6-4, 1-0
W#2 DoublesJennifer Bane / Heidi Palena vs Diana Callaway / Alison Davis6-2, 6-3
W#3 DoublesLisa Provost / Puntrigar Suriyaseang vs Laura Laney / Gretchen Wagner7-6, 6-3
2025-03-09Won 3–0
W#1 DoublesSue Edmonds / Puntrigar Suriyaseang vs Kim Christensen / Tami Socolofsky7-5, 6-2
W#2 DoublesNatalya Ramras / Heidi Palena vs Melanie DeSilva / Julie Trujillo6-1, 7-5
W#3 DoublesMichele Beaman / Lynne Nieda vs Mary Rudinsky / Ruth Semon6-2, 6-1
2025-03-01Lost 0–2
L#1 DoublesMichele Beaman / Kyra John vs Nina Hanson / Kari Hastings6-1, 6-1
L#3 DoublesJanet Mills / Jenny Pizot vs Annette Hill / Colleen Kellogg7-6, 6-3
2025-02-08Split 2–2
W#1 DoublesMichele Beaman / Lynne Nieda vs Tove Maloco / Becky Holzman7-5, 6-7, 1-0
L#1 SinglesPuntrigar Suriyaseang vs Anna Holowetzki6-3, 6-4
L#2 DoublesNatalya Ramras / Heidi Palena vs Julie Kim / Dory Simons6-4, 6-4
W#3 DoublesSusan Agee / Jenny Pizot vs Jill Eilers / Janae Pyle6-1, 6-3
2025-02-02Won 2–1
L#1 SinglesPuntrigar Suriyaseang vs Kaoru Nelson6-7, 6-2, 1-0
W#2 DoublesSue Edmonds / Jenny Pizot vs Mihee Park / CHRISTINE McNair6-1, 6-0
W#3 DoublesJanet Mills / Kyra John vs Woohyung Kim / Patty Chen6-3, 6-2
2025-02-01Won 3–1
L#1 DoublesJanet Mills / Natalya Ramras vs Andrea Vicino / Crystal Miller6-2, 6-2
W#1 SinglesPuntrigar Suriyaseang vs Jane Shu6-4, 7-5
W#2 DoublesHeidi Palena / Jennifer Bane vs Alison Marr / Tonya Halog6-4, 6-2
W#3 DoublesSusan Agee / Jenny Pizot vs Marian Sy Shamon / Sandi Martes6-2, 6-0
2025-01-19Lost 1–2
L#1 DoublesHeidi Palena / Jennifer Bane vs Lupine Swanson / Jing Li6-4, 6-3
W#2 DoublesKyra John / Natalya Ramras vs Karen Harlow / Marilyn Sims6-2, 4-6, 1-0
L#3 DoublesLisa Provost / Jenny Pizot vs Sandie Yamauchi / Michelle Ericson6-4, 6-0
2025-01-11Split 2–2
W#1 DoublesJennifer Bane / Heidi Palena vs Diana Callaway / Kristin Campbell6-3, 6-1
W#1 SinglesPuntrigar Suriyaseang vs Gretchen Wagner7-6, 6-2
L#2 DoublesKyra John / Lynne Nieda vs Catherine Leedy / Lee Rahr0-6, 6-4, 1-0
L#3 DoublesJanet Mills / Michele Beaman vs Laura Laney / Kim Wright6-3, 1-6, 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.
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.

3.5
Puntrigar Suriyaseang
33W–49L career
0%99%1%
3.32
3.5
Lynne Nieda
62W–51L career
1%99%0%
3.28
3.5
Janet Mills
66W–75L career
1%99%0%
3.24
3.5
Kyra John
42W–40L career
3%96%0%
3.19
3.5
Heidi Palena
79W–62L career
4%96%0%
3.19
3.5
Jenny Pizot
44W–56L career
4%95%0%
3.19
3.5
Lisa Provost
37W–120L career
19%81%0%
3.09

Three percentages are the year-end projection — chance of moving down, staying, moving up — and the number on the right is our estimated dynamic rating, which USTA never publishes. 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.