← Teams

MAC-Leedy

2019 Mixed 40 & Over · 7.0 Mixed

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

View scouting list →
Scouting

Roster averages 3.26 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.

3.70
Tara Hendrickson
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.46
Bill Henderson
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 4
3.39
Janae Pyle
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.36
Tom Sloan
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.30
Jeffrey Bayless
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
—
Glenn Eisen
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.04
Catherine Leedy
usually #3 Doubles 57%, also #1 Doubles 29% · published 3.5
3.00
Gretchen Wagner
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
2.86
Matthew Casimo
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3
—
John Nee
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3
Results8 ties
2019-03-09Won 3–0
W#1 DoublesElizabeth Burns / Bill Henderson vs Michael Sheridan / Megan Clifford7-6, 6-1
W#2 DoublesChip Burczak / Janae Pyle vs Rie Sasakawa / Dick Kennish6-4, 6-3
W#3 DoublesCatherine Leedy / Jeffrey Bayless vs Marko Radosavljevic / Alison Marr7-6, 7-6
2019-02-27Won 2–0
W#2 DoublesElizabeth Burns / Bill Henderson vs Brandy Horwitz / Michael Horwitz6-4, 2-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesGretchen Wagner / Jeffrey Bayless vs Elizabeth Domagalski / David Rabbino6-3, 6-2
2019-02-16Split 1–1
L#2 DoublesElizabeth Burns / Matthew Casimo vs Adriana Caliri / Marco Bas6-2, 7-6
W#3 DoublesJanae Pyle / Robert Crawford vs Merry Pettis / William Pettis6-4, 6-4
2019-02-06Lost 1–2
W#1 DoublesTara Hendrickson / John Nee vs Ariana White / Meshi Chavez3-6, 6-2, 1-0
L#2 DoublesDeb Garris / Tom Sloan vs Tina Farrelly / Michael Arellano6-3, 6-4
L#3 DoublesCatherine Leedy / Chip Burczak vs Mary Klinger / William Allers6-4, 3-6, 1-0
2019-02-01Lost 0–3
L#1 DoublesDeb Garris / Tom Sloan vs Paul Harwood / Lily Looi6-1, 6-3
L#2 DoublesGlenn Eisen / Janae Pyle vs Brady Berry / Theresa Berry7-5, 6-7, 1-0
L#3 DoublesMatthew Casimo / Gretchen Wagner vs Susan Robblee / Sam Ko6-4, 6-0
2019-01-26Split 1–1
L#1 DoublesCatherine Leedy / Jeffrey Bayless vs Paula Jacobson / Christopher Shaw6-3, 6-2
W#3 DoublesBill Henderson / Elizabeth Burns vs Michael Patrick / Janine Wood6-1, 6-7, 1-0
2019-01-20Won 2–1
L#1 DoublesElizabeth Burns / Bill Henderson vs Deborah Naugler / Steve Harris7-6, 6-4
W#2 DoublesDeb Garris / Tom Sloan vs Sharon Loomis-Malin / Jonathan Harms6-3, 4-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesKristin Eckelman / John Nee vs N/A6-0, 6-0
2019-01-12Won 2–0
W#2 DoublesJeffrey Bayless / Kristin Eckelman vs Greg Douglass / Marilyn Bishop6-1, 6-3
W#3 DoublesGretchen Wagner / Matthew Casimo vs Conrad Eustis / Shelly Bigley4-6, 6-1, 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.

4
Tara Hendrickson
71W–65L career
2%98%0%
3.70
4
Bill Henderson
108W–120L career
46%54%0%
3.46
3.5
Janae Pyle
98W–49L career
0%95%5%
3.39
3.5
Tom Sloan
65W–40L career
0%94%5%
3.36
3.5
Jeffrey Bayless
130W–100L career
0%99%1%
3.30
3.5
Glenn Eisen
57W–50L career
not enough data
—
3.5
Catherine Leedy
86W–119L career
23%77%0%
3.04
3.5
Gretchen Wagner
40W–54L career
35%65%0%
3.00
3
Matthew Casimo
40W–103L career
0%98%2%
2.86
3
John Nee
38W–66L career
not enough data
—

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.