Teams

WIL:WinterHerons:Sicinski

2026 Cape Mixed 55 & Over · 7.0 Mixed Fall

16 players · average NTRP 3.38 / EASTERN MASSACHUSETTS

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2026-03-08vs MCAC:Mixers:Feeney:NapoliWon 10
W#1 DoublesJim Bisceglia / Liz Coleman vs Joseph Bucchanio / Antonia Kenny6-3, 6-1
2026-03-01vs SES:GoSHT:Feeney:NapoliWon 10
W#3 DoublesChristine Cook / Gerald Haigh vs Scott Muma / Betsy Casey4-6, 6-1, 1-0
2026-02-22vs SES:GoSHT:Feeney:NapoliWon 10
W#2 DoublesGerald Haigh / Liz Coleman vs John Landers / Barbara Cano6-4, 4-5, 1-0
2026-02-01vs SES:GoSHT:Feeney:NapoliWon 10
W#3 DoublesGerald Haigh / Gemma Jones vs Jeffrey Vivian / Audrey Gandini6-4, 6-1
2025-12-21vs SES:GoSHT:Feeney:NapoliSplit 11
L#1 DoublesGerald Haigh / Ellen Harris vs Paul Napoli / Nancy Whitehurst3-6, 1-6
W#2 DoublesJim Bisceglia / Susan Watkins vs Scott Muma / Kelly ORourke6-4, 4-6, 1-0
2025-11-16vs SES:GoSHT:Feeney:NapoliWon 20
W#1 DoublesGerald Haigh / Susan Watkins vs Paul Napoli / Jeanne Bissonnette6-3, 6-0
W#3 DoublesJim Bisceglia / Liz Coleman vs Scott Muma / Betsy Casey6-3, 6-4
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 standings2 teams · 7.0 Mixed Fall
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1WIL:WinterHerons:Sicinski7321922227
2MCAC:Mixers:Feeney:Napoli3792146310

Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.

See the full flight, with every team’s record

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 3.21 estimated across 3 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.

Christine Taylor
published 4
3.59
Ellen Sicinski
usually #1 Doubles 78%, also #3 Doubles 22% · published
3.26
David Bernstein
usually #3 Doubles 80%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published 3.5
2.78
Catherine Haynes
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
Christine Cook
published 3
Ellen Harris
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
Gemma Jones
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
Gerald Haigh
usually #3 Doubles 40%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published
Henry Brehm
usually #3 Doubles 38%, also #2 Doubles 38% · published
James Veninger
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Jim Bisceglia
usually #1 Doubles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
John Gauthier
usually #2 Doubles 64%, also #1 Doubles 27% · published
Liz Coleman
usually #3 Doubles 43%, also #2 Doubles 29% · published
Peter Weinman
usually #1 Doubles 55%, also #3 Doubles 27% · published
Susan Watkins
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
Victor Mokarry
usually #2 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.

Christine Cook + James Veninger20462% gamesnot enough data
Ellen Sicinski + Peter Weinman8264% gamesnot enough data
James Veninger + Catherine Haynes9071% gamesnot enough data
John Gauthier + Susan Watkins6257% gamesnot enough data
Henry Brehm + Ellen Sicinski3350% gamesnot enough data
David Bernstein + Ellen Sicinski3254% gamesnot enough data
Henry Brehm + Catherine Haynes314 matchesnot enough data
John Gauthier + Ellen Sicinski314 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.

4
Christine Taylor
30W–12L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Ellen Sicinski
63W–27L career · 9 lines in 2026
26%74%<1%
3.59
3.5
David Bernstein
48W–39L career · 5 lines in 2026
3%93%4%
3.26
3
Catherine Haynes
22W–10L career · type M · 4 lines in 2026
2%92%6%
2.78
3
Christine Cook
61W–15L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Ellen Harris
96W–71L career · 4 lines in 2026
not enough data
Gemma Jones
7W–13L career · 4 lines in 2026
not enough data
Gerald Haigh
78W–49L career · 5 lines in 2026
not enough data
Henry Brehm
45W–31L career · 8 lines in 2026
not enough data
James Veninger
141W–36L career · 3 lines in 2026
not enough data
Jim Bisceglia
62W–46L career · 3 lines in 2026
not enough data
John Gauthier
69W–50L career · 11 lines in 2026
not enough data
Liz Coleman
6W–7L career · 7 lines in 2026
not enough data
Peter Weinman
155W–79L career · 11 lines in 2026
not enough data
Susan Watkins
13W–7L career · 12 lines in 2026
not enough data
Victor Mokarry
4W–2L career · 2 lines 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.