Teams

Mixon/40/3.0/WN/OCC

2025 LAF Adult 40 & Over - Women Night · 3.0 LAF (40&O) Women Night

11 players · average NTRP 3.00 / LOUISIANA

No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2025-03-26vs Theriot/40/3.0/WN/CCRRLost 13
L#1 DoublesMary Snellgrove / Deni Breaux vs Beth Dyson / Liz Webb Hebert1-6, 4-6
W#1 SinglesMichelle Mixon vs Bobbi Caldwell7-5, 7-6
L#2 DoublesTonia Cormier / Erin Breaux vs Claire Derge / Karunasri Janga2-6, 2-6
L#3 DoublesKaaren Pantaleo / Ann LeBlanc vs Donna Comeaux / Debbie Haydell5-7, 0-6
2025-02-24vs Theriot/40/3.0/WN/CCRRSplit 22
W#1 DoublesMary Snellgrove / Katherine Riemann vs Nita Harrington / Debbie Haydell6-3, 6-2
L#1 SinglesMichelle Mixon vs Bobbi Caldwell6-7, 0-6
W#2 DoublesMelissa Caruso / Deni Breaux vs Judy Siefker / Claire Derge3-6, 7-5, 1-0
L#3 DoublesAnn LeBlanc / Kaaren Pantaleo vs Maggie Stirling / Karunasri Janga3-6, 5-7
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 3.0 LAF (40&O) Women Night 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 2.71 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.

3.15
Katherine Riemann
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.93
Tanya Zeringue
published
2.81
Michelle Mixon
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
2.79
Ann LeBlanc
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.77
Mary Snellgrove
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.63
Erin Breaux
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.62
Deni Breaux
usually #1 Doubles 71%, also #2 Doubles 29% · published 3
2.37
Kaaren Pantaleo
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.32
Tonia Cormier
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Janet Blanchard
published
Melissa Caruso
usually #2 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.

Mary Snellgrove + Tonia Cormier314 matchesnot enough data
Tonia Cormier + Erin Breaux134 matchesnot enough data
Erin Breaux + Ann LeBlanc123 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.

Katherine Riemann
28W–25L career · 1 line in 2025
15%85%1%
3.15
Tanya Zeringue
13W–10L career · no lines in 2025
<1%69%31%
2.93
Michelle Mixon
21W–46L career · 2 lines in 2025
1%90%8%
2.81
3
Ann LeBlanc
14W–17L career · 2 lines in 2025
2%91%7%
2.79
Mary Snellgrove
6W–10L career · 2 lines in 2025
3%92%5%
2.77
Erin Breaux
13W–13L career · 1 line in 2025
18%81%<1%
2.63
3
Deni Breaux
12W–22L career · 7 lines in 2025
20%80%<1%
2.62
Kaaren Pantaleo
2W–21L career · 2 lines in 2025
82%18%<1%
2.37
Tonia Cormier
9W–18L career · 1 line in 2025
90%10%<1%
2.32
Janet Blanchard
0W–3L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Melissa Caruso
1W–2L career · 1 line in 2025
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.