Teams

HH40/Kelley/Wexford

Adult 40 & Over · Adult Women 3.5

15 players · average NTRP 3.50 / SOUTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2022-06-02Lost 01
L#1 SinglesJane Ferro vs Susan LoSardo3-6, 5-7
2022-05-26Lost 01
L#1 SinglesJane Ferro vs Kim Morris2-6, 2-6
2022-05-19Won 10
W#1 SinglesJane Ferro vs Ashley Kube7-6, 6-3
2022-05-12vs RestrungLost 01
L#1 SinglesJane Ferro vs Kim Dyer3-6, 2-6
2022-05-05Won 10
W#1 SinglesJane Ferro vs Annie Thierry4-6, 6-2, 1-0
2022-04-28Won 10
W#1 SinglesJane Ferro vs Robin Naples7-6, 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 Adult Women 3.5 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 3.10 estimated across 11 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.

3.34
Midge Crist
published
3.31
Jane Ferro
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
3.28
Jane Peak
published
3.28
Ann Marie McPherson
published 3.5
3.24
Jean Garrell
published
3.19
Annie Mihok
published 3.5
3.05
Karen Klasing
published
2.97
Deborah Lasota
published 3.5
2.94
Peggy Saunders
published
2.88
Lynn Looby
published
2.61
Laura Levine
published
Jodi Rehm
published
Marion Brown
published
Nancy Oechsner
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.

Jean Garrell + Jane Peak4167% games+9.5% vs expected
Marion Brown + Karen Klasing4155% gamesnot enough data
Jane Peak + Annie Mihok2345% gamesnot enough data
Midge Crist + Jean Garrell224 matchesnot enough data
Midge Crist + Karen Klasing134 matchesnot enough data
Deborah Lasota + Jodi Rehm134 matchesnot enough data
Midge Crist + Deborah Lasota213 matchesnot enough data
Midge Crist + Sandra Burton Kelley303 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.

Midge Crist
28W–22L career · no lines in 2022
<1%88%11%
3.34
Jane Ferro
64W–30L career · 6 lines in 2022
1%92%7%
3.31
Jane Peak
23W–22L career · no lines in 2022
2%94%5%
3.28
Sandra Burton Kelley
42W–31L career · no lines in 2022
2%94%4%
3.28
3.5
Ann Marie McPherson
6W–2L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Jean Garrell
23W–13L career · no lines in 2022
3%94%2%
3.24
3.5
Annie Mihok
6W–7L career · type A · no lines in 2022
7%92%1%
3.19
Karen Klasing
15W–27L career · no lines in 2022
36%64%<1%
3.05
3.5
Deborah Lasota
14W–38L career · no lines in 2022
60%40%<1%
2.97
Peggy Saunders
9W–8L career · no lines in 2022
<1%69%31%
2.94
Lynn Looby
31W–14L career · no lines in 2022
<1%82%17%
2.88
Laura Levine
22W–37L career · no lines in 2022
20%80%<1%
2.61
Jodi Rehm
13W–11L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Marion Brown
17W–6L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Nancy Oechsner
2W–9L career · no lines in 2022
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.