Teams

WI Adult 65 & Over Women 7.0 FCRC Backus

2026 WI Adult 65 & Over · WI Adult 65 & Over 7.0 Women

8 players · average NTRP 3.50 / WISCONSIN

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
L#1 DoublesJilane Brooks / Susan Suprise vs Colleen Kendle / Karen Maloney2-6, 5-7
W#2 DoublesChristine Fleming / Imee Hofmeister vs Judith Borawski / Cindy Shannon6-2, 7-5
L#1 DoublesSusan Suprise / Diane Ziegler vs Anne Czyz Klemens / Karen Maloney5-7, 0-6
W#2 DoublesPam Weider / Jilane Brooks vs Mary Pott / Jean Bachmann6-3, 6-2
W#3 DoublesMary Miller / Imee Hofmeister vs Diane Troutman / Cindy Shannon6-3, 6-2
L#1 DoublesDiane Ziegler / Christine Fleming vs Anne Czyz Klemens / Diane Troutman2-6, 4-6
W#3 DoublesKathy Backus / Shirley Connor vs Judith Borawski / Jean Bachmann2-6, 7-5, 1-0
L#1 DoublesMary Miller / Pam Weider vs Anne Czyz Klemens / Karen Maloney0-6, 3-6
W#2 DoublesSusan Schmidt / Shirley Connor vs Mary Pott / Judith Borawski6-3, 4-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesJilane Brooks / Kathy Backus vs Jean Bachmann / Diane Troutman6-2, 5-7, 1-0
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 standings2 teams · WI Adult 65 & Over 7.0 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1WI Adult 65 & Over Women 7.0 FCRC Backus408412108
2WI Adult 65 & Over Women 7.0 Western Shannon044816113

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 3.11 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.

3.15
Diane Ziegler
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.14
Imee Hofmeister
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
3.09
Shirley Connor
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
3.05
Christine Fleming
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
Kathy Backus
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Kristie Neher
published
Pam Weider
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
Susan Suprise
usually #1 Doubles 100% · 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.

Shirley Connor + Imee Hofmeister3455% games+3.3% vs expected
Christine Fleming + Imee Hofmeister4255% gamesnot enough data
Kristie Neher + Pam Weider314 matchesnot enough data
Diane Ziegler + Imee Hofmeister213 matchesnot enough data
Shirley Connor + Kristie Neher033 matchesnot enough data
Imee Hofmeister + Kristie Neher123 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
Diane Ziegler
15W–14L career · 2 lines in 2026
15%85%1%
3.15
Imee Hofmeister
33W–37L career · 2 lines in 2026
16%84%1%
3.14
Shirley Connor
21W–20L career · 2 lines in 2026
27%73%<1%
3.09
3.5
Christine Fleming
22W–25L career · 2 lines in 2026
37%63%<1%
3.05
Kathy Backus
6W–2L career · 2 lines in 2026
not enough data
Kristie Neher
5W–10L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Pam Weider
8W–9L career · 2 lines in 2026
not enough data
Susan Suprise
4W–5L 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.