Teams

Points Taken

Summer Adult 18 & Over NA WeekDAY Doubles · Womens 3.5 SumrDubsWkdy

8 players · average NTRP 3.25 / TEXAS

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2024-02-13vs 40luvWon 20
W#1 DoublesJudy Daffer / Kathryn Stelzer vs Teri Paxton / Carol Meriwether2-6, 6-4, 1-0
W#4 DoublesSharon Clishem / Susan Hochstatter vs Kimberly Atkinson / Helen Russell6-1, 6-2
2024-02-01vs Tennis DollsLost 12
L#1 SinglesSusan Hochstatter vs Kimberly Brumfield4-6, 5-7
L#2 DoublesCelia Youngren / Dana Ivers vs Tammy Cook / Martha Richardson6-3, 6-7, 0-1
W#3 DoublesElizabeth Stanis / Cara Asher vs Liz Stringer / Casey Raynor7-6, 2-6, 1-0
2024-01-18vs Serve Me A DoubleSplit 11
W#1 DoublesCara Asher / Ann Foley vs Leslie Hodge / Laurie Moore6-4, 3-6, 1-0
L#2 DoublesDana Ivers / Dee Dee Brooks vs Stephanie McKenzie / Paula Greenfield1-6, 6-1, 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 Womens 3.5 SumrDubsWkdy 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 2.96 estimated across 6 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.

Dana Ivers
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.13
Judy Daffer
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.11
Cara Asher
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.00
Susan Hochstatter
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #4 Doubles 50% · published
2.93
Sharon Clishem
usually #4 Doubles 100% · published
2.82
Celia Youngren
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.77
Gloria Kerin
published 3
Lynn Longwill
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.

Gloria Kerin + Judy Daffer3345% games+1.7% vs expected
Dana Ivers + Celia Youngren61147% games−2.0% vs expected
Judy Daffer + Cara Asher4345% games−5.1% vs expected
Lynn Longwill + Sharon Clishem4644% games−6.0% vs expected
Susan Hochstatter + Sharon Clishem2930% games−6.8% vs expected
Dana Ivers + Lynn Longwill0531% gamesnot enough data
Cara Asher + Lynn Longwill5062% gamesnot enough data
Judy Daffer + Susan Hochstatter224 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
Dana Ivers
18W–36L career · 2 lines in 2022
not enough data
Judy Daffer
19W–38L career · 1 line in 2022
15%84%<1%
3.13
3.5
Cara Asher
24W–19L career · 2 lines in 2022
19%81%<1%
3.11
Susan Hochstatter
28W–107L career · 2 lines in 2022
49%51%<1%
3.00
Sharon Clishem
16W–51L career · 1 line in 2022
70%30%<1%
2.93
3
Celia Youngren
22W–44L career · 1 line in 2022
1%91%8%
2.82
3
Gloria Kerin
26W–34L career · no lines in 2022
2%94%4%
2.77
Lynn Longwill
18W–34L career · no 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.