Teams

EE:String Theory:Gale/Demas

2025 VT Adult 65 & Over Women · 7.0 Adult 65 & Over Women

15 players · average NTRP 3.50 / VERMONT

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2025-08-16vs OC:Prime Time:Foulk/JacksonWon 21
L#1 DoublesSarah Brown / Susan Thornburg vs Joan Holcombe / Judith Jackson3-6, 5-7
W#2 DoublesSarah Ellis / Martha Small vs Malgorzata Donnelly / Kathy Yost6-3, 6-3
W#3 DoublesDawn Bugbee / Laurel Clark vs Elizabeth Maislen / Elaine Meek6-4, 6-2
2025-08-09vs OC:Prime Time:Foulk/JacksonLost 12
L#1 DoublesMarjorie Gale / Cynthia Sherburne vs Rebecca Foulk / Judith Jackson4-6, 4-6
L#2 DoublesLinda Morgan-Yatzor / Patricia Sabalis vs Priscilla Geoghegan / Judy Wild1-6, 2-6
W#3 DoublesLiz Demas / Sarah Ellis vs Marion Hampton / Carole McNamee7-5, 6-0
2025-08-02vs OC:Prime Time:Foulk/JacksonWon 21
L#1 DoublesPatricia Sabalis / Lisa Strausser vs Joan Holcombe / Priscilla Geoghegan3-6, 4-6
W#2 DoublesCarol Bouyea / Peggy Cohen vs Judy Wild / Judith Jackson6-1, 7-6
W#3 DoublesSarah Brown / Susan Thornburg vs Suzanne Merrill / Elizabeth Maislen7-5, 6-3
2025-07-10vs OC:Prime Time:Foulk/JacksonLost 12
W#1 DoublesCarol Bouyea / Patricia Sabalis vs Helen Ainsworth / Rebecca Foulk6-4, 2-6, 1-0
L#2 DoublesLynn Bursell / Linda Morgan-Yatzor vs Suzanne Merrill / Judy Wild4-6, 4-6
L#3 DoublesLiz Demas / Martha Small vs Malgorzata Donnelly / Kathy Yost6-2, 4-6, 0-1
2025-07-07vs OC:Prime Time:Foulk/JacksonWon 21
W#1 DoublesCynthia Sherburne / Marjorie Gale vs Elaine Meek / Marion Hampton6-1, 6-2
W#2 DoublesMartha Small / Lynn Bursell vs Kathy Yost / Rebecca Foulk3-6, 6-1, 1-0
L#3 DoublesLaurel Clark / Dawn Bugbee vs Suzanne Merrill / Helen Ainsworth1-6, 6-3, 0-1
2025-06-16vs OC:Prime Time:Foulk/JacksonWon 30
W#1 DoublesPatricia Sabalis / Lisa Strausser vs Joan Holcombe / Priscilla Geoghegan6-1, 4-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesCarol Bouyea / Peggy Cohen vs Rebecca Foulk / Suzanne Merrill6-3, 6-2
W#3 DoublesSarah Brown / Susan Thornburg vs Elizabeth Maislen / Kathy Yost6-2, 6-0
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 · 7.0 Adult 65 & Over Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1EE:String Theory:Gale/Demas4211717146
2OC:Prime Time:Foulk/Jackson2471124180

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 3.10 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.

3.32
Lisa Strausser
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.29
Cynthia Sherburne
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.18
Peggy Cohen
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.15
Martha Small
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
3.11
Linda Morgan-Yatzor
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.08
Carol Bouyea
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.02
Susan Thornburg
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
2.90
Sarah Ellis
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
2.88
Dawn Bugbee
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
Laurel Clark
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Liz Demas
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Lynn Bursell
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Marjorie Gale
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Patricia Sabalis
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
Sarah Brown
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.

Linda Morgan-Yatzor + Peggy Cohen5348% games−5.6% vs expected
Liz Demas + Sarah Ellis4546% gamesnot enough data
Linda Morgan-Yatzor + Lynn Bursell4547% gamesnot enough data
Cynthia Sherburne + Martha Small3444% gamesnot enough data
Lynn Bursell + Peggy Cohen2544% gamesnot enough data
Lisa Strausser + Carol Bouyea1435% gamesnot enough data
Liz Demas + Lynn Bursell2343% gamesnot enough data
Linda Morgan-Yatzor + Dawn Bugbee0532% 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.

Lisa Strausser
64W–50L career · 2 lines in 2025
1%89%10%
3.32
3.5
Cynthia Sherburne
26W–41L career · 2 lines in 2025
2%91%7%
3.29
Peggy Cohen
38W–32L career · 2 lines in 2025
10%89%1%
3.18
Martha Small
41W–42L career · 3 lines in 2025
13%86%1%
3.15
Linda Morgan-Yatzor
46W–68L career · 2 lines in 2025
>99%<1%<1%
3.11
3.5
Carol Bouyea
22W–35L career · 3 lines in 2025
28%72%<1%
3.08
Susan Thornburg
16W–7L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%43%57%
3.02
Sarah Ellis
14W–21L career · 2 lines in 2025
76%24%<1%
2.90
3.5
Dawn Bugbee
13W–22L career · 2 lines in 2025
80%20%<1%
2.88
Laurel Clark
12W–11L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Liz Demas
16W–29L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Lynn Bursell
32W–37L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Marjorie Gale
7W–14L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Patricia Sabalis
13W–14L career · 4 lines in 2025
not enough data
Sarah Brown
14W–9L career · no lines 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.