Teams

WB: Krueger

2026 RI Adult 65 & Over Women · 7.0 Women 1

9 players · average NTRP 3.25 / RHODE ISLAND

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2026-08-21vs FC: Friends/Carvalho/GoldenLost 03
L#1 DoublesSusan Darby / Ellis Palmer vs Lauren McDonald / Claire Restivo0-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesPatricia Krueger / Katherine Tolsdorf vs Kieran Carvalho / Marie Bilodeau3-6, 6-7
L#3 DoublesCarmen Rousseau / Kathryne Leonard vs Susan English / Nancy Thompson6-2, 6-7, 1-3
2026-08-06vs CC: PreveLost 03
L#1 DoublesPatricia Krueger / Deborah Olisky vs Deborah Robertson / Mary Lou Seaward6-7, 2-5
L#2 DoublesCarmen Rousseau / Nancy Guglielmetti vs Roberta Preve / Virginia Field1-6, 2-6
L#3 DoublesEllis Palmer / Kathryne Leonard vs Cheryl Abbatematteo / Cheryl Bagaglia3-6, 1-6
2026-07-29vs FC: Friends/Carvalho/GoldenLost 12
L#1 DoublesPatricia Krueger / Deborah Olisky vs Cynthia Gavin / Marie Bilodeau7-5, 0-2, 0-1
L#2 DoublesSusan Darby / Kathryne Leonard vs Lesa Brehio / Deborah Golden4-6, 5-7
W#3 DoublesKatherine Tolsdorf / Ellis Palmer vs Kieran Carvalho / Nancy Thompson6-3, 6-2
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 · 7.0 Women 1
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1CC: Preve0251235
2FC: Friends/Carvalho/Golden0233861
3WB: Krueger02151062

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 2.93 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.

3.18
Deborah Olisky
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.02
Katherine Tolsdorf
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
2.59
Carmen Rousseau
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3
Ellis Palmer
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
Kathryne Leonard
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
Millie Lukens
published
Nancy Guglielmetti
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Patricia Krueger
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
Susan Darby
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · 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.

Katherine Tolsdorf + Deborah Olisky224 matchesnot enough data
Patricia Krueger + Katherine Tolsdorf123 matchesnot enough data
Patricia Krueger + Deborah Olisky123 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
Deborah Olisky
108W–78L career · 2 lines in 2026
10%89%1%
3.18
Katherine Tolsdorf
25W–37L career · 2 lines in 2026
45%55%<1%
3.02
3
Carmen Rousseau
64W–84L career · 2 lines in 2026
26%74%<1%
2.59
Ellis Palmer
6W–6L career · 3 lines in 2026
not enough data
Kathryne Leonard
5W–8L career · 3 lines in 2026
not enough data
Millie Lukens
3W–0L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Nancy Guglielmetti
8W–21L career · 1 line in 2026
not enough data
Patricia Krueger
13W–9L career · 3 lines in 2026
not enough data
Susan Darby
9W–10L 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.