Teams

Plant City 55+Gals - P. Smith

2025 Hillsborough Adult 55 & Over · 6.0 Adult 55 & Over - Women

10 players · average NTRP 3.00 / REGION_3

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2025-03-15vs Hills/Vickers/55&Over6.0WLost 01
L#2 DoublesBrenda McIsaac / Julianna Holbrook vs Hannah Gabora / Cille Williams3-6, 3-6
2025-03-08vs Apollo Beach - J. FeeneyWon 20
W#2 DoublesKaren Hogg / Rosa Jean vs Mary Raymond / Lynn Malarz3-6, 6-4, 1-0
W#3 DoublesJulianna Holbrook / Brenda McIsaac vs Juanita Vila / Rhonda Russell2-6, 6-2, 1-0
2025-02-22vs Hills/Vickers/55&Over6.0WWon 10
W#1 DoublesCatherine Mueller / Karen Hogg vs Karen Cleland / Theresa Mays6-1, 6-1
2025-02-08vs Apollo Beach - J. FeeneyWon 10
W#3 DoublesJulianna Holbrook / Rosa Jean vs Lynn Malarz / Amalia Alaniz6-2, 6-4
2025-01-25vs Hills/Vickers/55&Over6.0WLost 12
W#1 DoublesCatherine Mueller / Karen Hogg vs Katherine Grichnik / Sherry Peterson6-3, 5-7, 1-0
L#2 DoublesRosa Jean / Debra Summers vs Theresa Mays / Karen Cleland5-7, 4-6
L#3 DoublesJulianna Holbrook / Sheila Brown vs Carmen Heggen / Anne Stafford0-6, 3-6
2025-01-18vs Apollo Beach - J. FeeneyLost 01
L#1 DoublesCatherine Mueller / Karen Hogg vs Barbara Dolan / Jayna Halliday6-0, 3-6, 0-1
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 standings for 6.0 Adult 55 & Over - Women 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 2.58 estimated across 10 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.

2.91
Karen Hogg
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3
2.80
2.68
Debra Summers
published 3
2.59
Julie Goodwin
published
2.55
Patricia Smith
published
2.54
Sheila Brown
published
2.53
Jackie Wyckoff
published
2.39
Julianna Holbrook
usually #3 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
2.38
Dorothy Flair
published
2.37
Rosa Jean
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.

Jackie Wyckoff + Julie Goodwin11035% games−5.3% vs expected
Catherine Mueller + Karen Hogg2450% gamesnot 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
Karen Hogg
84W–99L career · 4 lines in 2025
<1%74%26%
2.91
3
Catherine Mueller
26W–27L career · no lines in 2025
2%91%8%
2.80
3
Debra Summers
7W–11L career · no lines in 2025
10%89%1%
2.68
Julie Goodwin
6W–21L career · no lines in 2025
26%74%<1%
2.59
Patricia Smith
6W–10L career · no lines in 2025
36%64%<1%
2.55
Sheila Brown
1W–8L career · no lines in 2025
37%63%<1%
2.54
Jackie Wyckoff
8W–17L career · no lines in 2025
41%59%<1%
2.53
Julianna Holbrook
60W–151L career · 4 lines in 2025
78%22%<1%
2.39
Dorothy Flair
10W–19L career · no lines in 2025
0%79%21%
2.38
Rosa Jean
28W–56L career · 3 lines in 2025
83%17%<1%
2.37

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.