Hampshire Country Club Net Vets 55
2025 55&Over Women · 7.0
13 players · average NTRP 3.33 / SOUTHERN REGION
No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.
Schedule8 played
i
Flight standings16 teams · 7.0
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1Chappaqua Swim and Tennis Hot Flashes 55 | 0 | 8 | 8 | 124 |
| 2Armonk Tennis Servivors 55 | 0 | 8 | 12 | 171 |
| 3NRRC: Grey Goose 55 | 0 | 8 | 18 | 202 |
| 4Matchpoint: Gracefully Acing 55 | 0 | 8 | 19 | 182 |
| 5RRC Set 2 Win 55 | 0 | 8 | 23 | 215 |
| 6Tennis Club of Hastings: Love Me Nots 55 | 0 | 8 | 23 | 204 |
| 7SMC - Genesis: Sure Shots 55 | 0 | 8 | 26 | 200 |
| 8Sportime Harbor Island 55 | 0 | 8 | 27 | 208 |
| 9Matchpoint Players 55 | 0 | 8 | 27 | 205 |
| 10Greenburg AFV Park-Court Appeal 55 | 0 | 8 | 27 | 236 |
| 11Hampshire Country Club Net Vets 55 | 0 | 8 | 27 | 198 |
| 12Club Fit JV - Volley Girls 55 | 0 | 8 | 28 | 231 |
| 13TCH: Many Happy Returns 55 | 0 | 8 | 30 | 241 |
| 14Mount Kisco Country Club Matchmakers 55 | 0 | 8 | 34 | 251 |
| 15Coveleigh Club: Cove and Friends 55 | 0 | 8 | 37 | 254 |
| 16Chestnut Ridge Early Bird Specials 55 | 0 | 8 | 42 | 262 |
Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.
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 3.07 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.
Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.
| Nancy Ossenfort + Louise Hagstrom | 10–1 | 68% games | +10.3% vs expected |
| Emily Catto + Sylvia Swanson | 13–9 | 52% games | +1.2% vs expected |
| Eileen Troise + Nancy Ossenfort | 52–40 | 52% games | +0.4% vs expected |
| Jacqueline Bohan + Polly Teitel | 14–9 | 54% games | −0.7% vs expected |
| Maria-Elena Fernandez-Beros + Sylvia Swanson | 9–10 | 49% games | −1.1% vs expected |
| Maria-Elena Fernandez-Beros + Yvonne Iversen | 5–3 | 51% games | −1.7% vs expected |
| Amanda Ansell + Yvonne Iversen | 7–6 | 52% games | −2.5% vs expected |
| Maria-Elena Fernandez-Beros + Nancy Ossenfort | 6–10 | 41% games | −9.0% vs expected |
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.
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.