Teams

Nassans/40/3.0/WN/THOM

2025 LAF Adult 40 & Over - Women Night · 3.0 LAF (40&O) Women Night

11 players · average NTRP 3.00 / LOUISIANA

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 →
Schedule2 played
2025-02-26vs Theriot/40/3.0/WN/CCRRSplit 22
L#1 DoublesSusan Melancon / Rebecca Taylor vs Melissa Theriot / Beth Dyson1-6, 4-6
W#1 SinglesShannon Richoux vs Nita Harrington6-1, 6-4
L#2 DoublesDonna Nassans / Stephanie Privat vs Judy Siefker / Joan Dubuisson3-6, 6-3, 0-1
W#3 DoublesMary Ducote / Michelle Ritter vs Debbie Haydell / Colleen Colby2-6, 6-4, 1-0
2025-02-01vs Theriot/40/3.0/WN/CCRRLost 13
L#1 DoublesDonna Nassans / Rebecca Taylor vs Donna Comeaux / Jennifer Frederick2-6, 2-6
L#1 SinglesTammy Romero vs Nita Harrington4-6, 1-6
W#2 DoublesMarilyn Emfinger / Susan Melancon vs Melissa Theriot / Amanda McMath2-5
L#3 DoublesArlene Dupuis / Mary Ducote vs Joan Dubuisson / Brooke Sanders6-4, 3-6, 0-1
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 3.0 LAF (40&O) Women Night 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 2.70 estimated across 10 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.

2.95
Susan Melancon
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
2.80
Stephanie Privat
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.79
Shannon Richoux
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
2.78
Kathy Broussard
published
2.71
Mary Ducote
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.68
Donna Nassans
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
2.65
Arlene Dupuis
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.62
Carla Fain
published 3
2.58
Michelle Ritter
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.40
Marilyn Emfinger
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Tammy Romero
usually #1 Singles 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.

Susan Melancon + Shannon Richoux3353% games+5.2% vs expected
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.

Susan Melancon
19W–17L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%64%36%
2.95
Stephanie Privat
1W–8L career · 1 line in 2025
2%91%8%
2.80
Shannon Richoux
14W–11L career · 1 line in 2025
2%92%6%
2.79
Kathy Broussard
8W–11L career · no lines in 2025
2%92%5%
2.78
Mary Ducote
4W–7L career · 2 lines in 2025
6%92%2%
2.71
Donna Nassans
4W–7L career · 2 lines in 2025
9%89%1%
2.68
3
Arlene Dupuis
14W–16L career · 1 line in 2025
14%85%1%
2.65
3
Carla Fain
3W–6L career · no lines in 2025
20%80%<1%
2.62
Michelle Ritter
2W–15L career · 1 line in 2025
28%72%<1%
2.58
Marilyn Emfinger
6W–17L career · 1 line in 2025
77%23%<1%
2.40
Tammy Romero
0W–1L career · 1 line in 2025
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.