Teams

Mills/Memphis

2024 Adult 55 & Over-Memphis · 3.5 Women 55 & Over

10 players · average NTRP 3.17 / TENNESSEE

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2024-04-13vs Nobles/MemphisLost 12
W#1 DoublesSUSAN WOODMAN / Barb Lansky vs Sun Hui Wright / Plum Nobles6-4, 6-3
L#2 DoublesLaura Huss / Karin Rubnitz vs Beverly Finnell / Deborah Kershner4-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesMaggie Lee / Julie Mullins vs Sandy Haddad / Patricia Alfonso3-6, 3-6
2024-04-06vs Wright/MemphisLost 12
W#1 DoublesSUSAN WOODMAN / Barb Lansky vs Tracy Sammons / Melissa Corcoran6-1, 6-1
L#2 DoublesDebbie Churchey / Laura Huss vs Anne Stephens / Leigh Hendry1-6, 7-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesJackie Renner Mills / Mary Durham vs Patricia Hayes / Barbara Latiolais3-6, 0-6
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 3.5 Women 55 & Over 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 3.03 estimated across 9 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.

3.47
Barb Lansky
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 17% · published 3.5
3.47
SUSAN WOODMAN
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
3.23
Karin Rubnitz
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.02
Laura Huss
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.00
Debbie Churchey
usually #2 Doubles 80%, also #1 Doubles 20% · published 3
2.99
Julie Mullins
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.77
Maggie Lee
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.74
Susan Dacus
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published
2.61
Jackie Renner Mills
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
Janet Leap
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.

Barb Lansky + SUSAN WOODMAN8363% games+5.7% vs expected
Susan Dacus + Debbie Churchey2352% gamesnot enough data
Laura Huss + Debbie Churchey033 matchesnot enough data
Debbie Churchey + Barb Lansky213 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.

3.5
Barb Lansky
49W–30L career · 6 lines in 2024
<1%58%42%
3.47
SUSAN WOODMAN
26W–21L career · 6 lines in 2024
59%41%<1%
3.47
Karin Rubnitz
19W–25L career · 1 line in 2024
4%94%2%
3.23
Laura Huss
4W–28L career · 2 lines in 2024
42%58%<1%
3.02
3
Debbie Churchey
59W–57L career · 5 lines in 2024
<1%49%51%
3.00
Julie Mullins
15W–32L career · 1 line in 2024
54%46%<1%
2.99
Maggie Lee
39W–47L career · 1 line in 2024
2%94%4%
2.77
Susan Dacus
35W–40L career · 4 lines in 2024
3%94%2%
2.74
3
Jackie Renner Mills
7W–15L career · 1 line in 2024
20%80%<1%
2.61
Janet Leap
2W–3L career · no lines in 2024
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.