Teams

NMI A40&O 3.5W Boros

2022 NMI Adult 40&O · 2022 NMI Adult 40&O 3.5W Boros

6 players · average NTRP 3.67 / NORTHERN MICHIGAN

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 →
Schedule4 played
2022-01-23vs Team ClousLost 12
L#1 DoublesDarlene Germaine / Erin Mitchell vs Barbara Newton-Tesarz / Julie Beeker1-6, 4-6
L#1 SinglesAmy Boros vs Connie Kamerling4-6, 0-6
W#3 DoublesRebecca Schubert / Michelle Turner vs Mary Adams / Missy Fitzgerald1-6, 7-6, 1-0
2022-01-22vs Team Vermetten/ToteffWon 21
W#1 DoublesErin Mitchell / Darlene Germaine vs Lisa Newhouse / Elizabeth Ammond6-1, 6-7, 1-0
L#2 DoublesMichelle Turner / Amy Boros vs Renee Kaufman / Cynthia van Maanen1-6, 7-6, 0-1
W#3 DoublesRebecca Galsterer / Rebecca Schubert vs Shelley Boisvert / Susan Vermetten6-3, 6-3
2022-01-22vs Team ClousWon 30
W#1 DoublesDarlene Germaine / Stacey Roberts vs Julie Povolo / Julie Beeker4-6, 6-1, 1-0
W#2 DoublesRebecca Galsterer / Rebecca Schubert vs Karen Rudolph / Missy Fitzgerald6-2, 6-3
W#3 DoublesMichelle Turner / Amy Boros vs Barbara Newton-Tesarz / Mary Adams5-7, 6-3, 1-0
2022-01-21vs Team Vermetten/ToteffSplit 11
L#1 DoublesAmy Boros / Michelle Turner vs Elizabeth Ammond / Lisa Newhouse4-6, 3-6
W#2 DoublesRebecca Galsterer / Stacey Roberts vs Shelley Boisvert / Babe Toteff6-1, 6-1
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 standings3 teams · 2022 NMI Adult 40&O 3.5W Boros
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1NMI A40&O 3.5W Boros3111922169
2Team Clous3171327185
3Team Vermetten/Toteff0461430209

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 3.50 estimated across 4 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.

4.06
Beth Robinson
published 4
3.55
Rebecca Schubert
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.33
Darlene Germaine
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.05
Amy Boros
usually #2 Doubles 25%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
Michelle Turner
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
Rebecca Galsterer
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · 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.

Rebecca Galsterer + Rebecca Schubert7162% games+2.9% vs expected
Michelle Turner + Amy Boros123 matchesnot enough data
Rebecca Schubert + Amy Boros123 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
Beth Robinson
13W–4L career · no lines in 2022
<1%33%67%
4.06
Rebecca Schubert
16W–9L career · 3 lines in 2022
36%64%<1%
3.55
3.5
Darlene Germaine
21W–22L career · 3 lines in 2022
1%90%9%
3.33
3.5
Amy Boros
9W–16L career · 4 lines in 2022
34%66%<1%
3.05
Michelle Turner
2W–6L career · 4 lines in 2022
not enough data
Rebecca Galsterer
10W–3L career · 3 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.