Teams

WSC-Neldam/Thim

2021 Adult 65 & Over · 7.0 Women

14 players · average NTRP 3.25 / NORTHWEST WASHINGTON

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2021-06-09vs RBW-BarnardLost 12
W#1 DoublesDebra Egge / Ann Rae Smith vs Kathleen Bremner / Ruth Jacobson6-1, 6-2
L#2 DoublesTerry Yuan / Kathleen Sheldon-Smith vs Suzanne Dodd / Sandy Rudolph4-6, 6-7
L#3 DoublesElissa Hollenbeck / Monika Ries vs Lucille Barnard / Carol Wolf3-6, 1-6
2021-06-01vs BC-RiceWon 21
W#1 DoublesMary Wiegenstein / Susan Thim vs Vikki Littleman / Donna Dornes2-6, 6-0, 1-0
W#2 DoublesHeidi Broecking / Maren Gibson vs Sandra Rice / Cindy Coakley7-5, 3-3
L#3 DoublesJude Neldam / Nancy Roma vs Susan Walker / Beth Smith2-6, 6-4, 0-1
2021-05-17vs BETC-Cruzer’s BruzersWon 30
W#1 DoublesHeidi Broecking / Maren Gibson vs Mary Louise Sumioka / Ann Goodenberger7-6, 4-2
W#2 DoublesAnn Rae Smith / Maureen Sunn vs Sally Linebarger / Joan Edwards6-4, 6-3
W#3 DoublesTerry Yuan / Kathleen Sheldon-Smith vs Nancy Lockett / Sylvian Colley6-0, 6-4
2021-05-10vs AYTC-BurvillLost 12
W#1 DoublesHeidi Broecking / Maren Gibson vs Jaclyn Brandt / Rosemary Curran6-3, 4-5
L#2 DoublesNancy Roma / Jude Neldam vs Francisca Lehr / Dolores Mirabella6-4, 3-6, 1-0
L#3 DoublesKathleen Sheldon-Smith / Terry Yuan vs Marybeth Alwood / Blair Stone6-7, 3-4
2021-05-05vs HBSQ-ClarkWon 30
W#1 DoublesMary Wiegenstein / Susan Thim vs Margaret Daniels / Nancy Lobisser6-1, 6-2
W#2 DoublesDebra Egge / Ann Rae Smith vs Leah Vitcovich / Dawn Snider7-5, 6-2
W#3 DoublesJude Neldam / Nancy Roma vs Patricia Liner / Barbara Kristek6-4, 6-2
2021-04-19vs HBSQ-SmallsWon 30
W#1 DoublesMary Wiegenstein / Susan Thim vs Mary Mercier / Joyce Tierney6-3, 6-3
W#2 DoublesAnn Rae Smith / Maureen Sunn vs Liz Smalley / Kathryn Sherman2-6, 6-4, 1-0
W#3 DoublesNancy Edwards / Debra Egge vs Laura Arrigoni / Cory Jacobson7-5, 7-6
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 standings7 teams · 7.0 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1AYTC-Burvill6013512151
2WSC-Neldam/Thim4213513144
3HBSQ-Smalls3310819162
4HBSQ-Clark339919164
5BC-Rice3381023164
6RBW-Barnard2481023176
7BETC-Cruzer’s Bruzers0621629201

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 2.99 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.

3.18
Nancy Roma
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.14
Susan Thim
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.12
Terry Yuan
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.06
Ann Rae Smith
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 3
3.03
Heidi Broecking
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published 3.5
3.01
Jude Neldam
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.86
Nancy Edwards
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.86
Debra Egge
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.62
Maren Gibson
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3
Elissa Hollenbeck
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 0
Mary Wiegenstein
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Maureen Sunn
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 0
Monika Ries
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 0
Suzanne Nash
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 Thim + Nancy Roma3349% games+10.2% vs expected
Debra Egge + Susan Thim4455% games+7.4% vs expected
Nancy Edwards + Nancy Roma4845% games+2.6% vs expected
Heidi Broecking + Terry Yuan4253% gamesnot enough data
Heidi Broecking + Maren Gibson5057% gamesnot enough data
Mary Wiegenstein + Maren Gibson224 matchesnot enough data
Debra Egge + Ann Rae Smith314 matchesnot enough data
Nancy Roma + Jude Neldam224 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
Nancy Roma
139W–145L career · 3 lines in 2021
9%91%1%
3.18
3.5
Susan Thim
47W–73L career · 3 lines in 2021
13%86%<1%
3.14
3.5
Terry Yuan
62W–46L career · 3 lines in 2021
18%82%<1%
3.12
3
Ann Rae Smith
51W–84L career · 4 lines in 2021
<1%31%69%
3.06
3.5
Heidi Broecking
26W–28L career · 5 lines in 2021
41%59%<1%
3.03
3
Jude Neldam
66W–59L career · type A · 3 lines in 2021
<1%46%54%
3.01
Nancy Edwards
111W–167L career · 1 line in 2021
<1%85%15%
2.86
3
Debra Egge
35W–72L career · 3 lines in 2021
<1%86%14%
2.86
3
Maren Gibson
125W–130L career · 3 lines in 2021
18%82%<1%
2.62
0
Elissa Hollenbeck
1W–3L career · 1 line in 2021
not enough data
Mary Wiegenstein
14W–14L career · 3 lines in 2021
not enough data
0
Maureen Sunn
18W–26L career · 2 lines in 2021
not enough data
0
Monika Ries
3W–11L career · 1 line in 2021
not enough data
Suzanne Nash
0W–2L career · no lines in 2021
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.