Teams

Olympic 2

2026 SUMMER 65&O Women · Summer 8.0W

8 players · average NTRP 3.50 / OHIO VALLEY

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 →
Schedule4 played
2026-08-07vs Olympic 1Lost 01
L#2 DoublesBarbara Wiese / Mary Drennen vs Kathleen Kinnard / Martha Pfeifer2-1
2026-07-31vs Olympic 1Lost 02
L#1 DoublesKelley LaPlace / Rebecca Long vs Kathleen Kinnard / Martha Pfeifer1-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesLinda McBride / Mary Drennen vs Michelle Jarrett / Mary Bacon1-6, 2-6
2026-07-22vs Olympic 1Lost 02
L#1 DoublesKelley LaPlace / Rebecca Long vs Lois Dosky / Janet Disbennett3-6, 4-2, 1-0
L#2 DoublesBarbara Wiese / Mary Drennen vs Kathleen Kinnard / Mary Bacon3-6, 3-6
2026-06-26vs Olympic 1Lost 02
L#1 DoublesRebecca Long / Kelley LaPlace vs Lori Brown / Lois Dosky2-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesMary Drennen / Nancy Lucas vs Laura Pisciotta / Janet Disbennett1-6, 0-6
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 Summer 8.0W 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 3.36 estimated across 2 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.

3.49
Barbara Wiese
usually #2 Doubles 83%, also #3 Doubles 17% · published 3.5
3.22
Mandi Grohoske
usually #2 Doubles 43%, also #3 Doubles 43% · published
Kelley LaPlace
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Leanna Cempre
published
Linda McBride
usually #3 Doubles 38%, also #1 Doubles 38% · published
Mary Drennen
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
Nancy Gibbs
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Nancy Lucas
usually #3 Doubles 100% · 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.

Mandi Grohoske + Barbara Wiese2443% games−1.2% vs expected
Nancy Lucas + Barbara Wiese7942% games−11.0% vs expected
Mary Drennen + Barbara Wiese3743% gamesnot enough data
Leanna Cempre + Barbara Wiese5349% gamesnot enough data
Mary Drennen + Leanna Cempre123 matchesnot enough data
Mandi Grohoske + Linda McBride033 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.

3.5
Barbara Wiese
97W–104L career · 6 lines in 2026
<1%52%48%
3.49
Mandi Grohoske
141W–115L career · 7 lines in 2026
5%94%2%
3.22
Kelley LaPlace
9W–6L career · 3 lines in 2026
not enough data
Leanna Cempre
36W–51L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Linda McBride
23W–58L career · 8 lines in 2026
not enough data
Mary Drennen
27W–30L career · 4 lines in 2026
not enough data
Nancy Gibbs
8W–8L career · 1 line in 2026
not enough data
Nancy Lucas
34W–54L career · 1 line in 2026
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.