Teams

DdeArmas (Firethorne)

2022 Adult 40 & Over League · 40 & Over Adult 3.5 Women

11 players · average NTRP 3.06 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2022-04-04vs THyso/Smith (Life Time)Won 10
W#2 DoublesJoanne Hurley / Danielle Shealy vs BC DeIuliis / Jennifer McCoy4-6, 6-3, 1-0
2022-03-28vs TBlankenship (PCC)Lost 01
L#3 DoublesMeghan Rawlings / Danielle Shealy vs Christine Leavitt / Natasha Brasch2-6, 3-6
2022-03-21vs MMetz/SAsby (Sardis)Lost 01
L#1 SinglesDanielle Shealy vs Kathryn Martin1-6, 0-6
2022-02-28vs KAllen (Raintree)Lost 01
L#2 DoublesJulianne Gray / Danielle Shealy vs Staci Wittek / Rachel Hallsten1-6, 5-7
2022-02-21vs DMusante (Matthews)Lost 01
L#1 DoublesJulianne Gray / Danielle Shealy vs Lisa Pacello / Angela Benson0-6, 1-6
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 standings for 40 & Over Adult 3.5 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 2.84 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.

3.40
Breck Lindley
published 3.5
2.96
Meghan Rawlings
published
2.92
Julianne Gray
published
2.87
Diane Hegele
published 3
2.87
Elizabeth Kyle
published 3
2.83
Danielle Shealy
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 3
2.81
Patty Swan
usually #3 Doubles 38%, also #1 Doubles 38% · published 3
2.71
Brenda Cage
published 3
2.54
Dorie de Armas
usually #2 Doubles 63%, also #3 Doubles 38% · published 3
2.50
Lisa Guacci
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #1 Singles 33% · published 3
Vera James
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.

Dorie de Armas + Lisa Guacci6551% gamesnot enough data
Dorie de Armas + Patty Swan1641% gamesnot enough data
Diane Hegele + Patty Swan4166% gamesnot enough data
Diane Hegele + Julianne Gray303 matchesnot enough data
Dorie de Armas + Elizabeth Kyle123 matchesnot enough data
Dorie de Armas + Brenda Cage123 matchesnot enough data
Patty Swan + Brenda Cage123 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
Breck Lindley
23W–18L career · no lines in 2022
<1%78%22%
3.40
Meghan Rawlings
14W–12L career · no lines in 2022
<1%63%37%
2.96
Julianne Gray
28W–17L career · no lines in 2022
<1%73%27%
2.92
3
Diane Hegele
16W–9L career · no lines in 2022
<1%83%16%
2.87
3
Elizabeth Kyle
22W–13L career · no lines in 2022
<1%83%16%
2.87
3
Danielle Shealy
91W–90L career · 12 lines in 2022
1%90%10%
2.83
3
Patty Swan
64W–80L career · 8 lines in 2022
1%92%7%
2.81
3
Brenda Cage
12W–12L career · no lines in 2022
5%94%1%
2.71
3
Dorie de Armas
40W–90L career · 8 lines in 2022
37%63%<1%
2.54
3
Lisa Guacci
42W–57L career · 3 lines in 2022
49%51%<1%
2.50
Vera James
2W–2L 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.