Teams

Yablonski 7.0

2026 65&Over Women · 7.0

9 players · average NTRP 3.38 / WESTERN REGION

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 →
Schedule10 played
2026-08-07Lost 01
L#3 DoublesSally Pearson / Jan Schoonmaker vs Lisa Grattan / Kathleen Metcalf0-6, 1-6
2026-08-06Lost 01
L#1 DoublesSally Pearson / Jan Schoonmaker vs Lisa Grattan / Kathleen Metcalf0-6, 1-6
2026-08-02Lost 01
L#3 DoublesSally Pearson / Jan Schoonmaker vs Lisa Grattan / Kathleen Metcalf0-6, 1-6
2026-07-16vs Syracuse: FredricksonLost 03
L#1 DoublesTina Nabinger / Patricia McClary vs Gwenn Judge / Ruth Sikora1-6, 6-4, 0-1
L#2 DoublesCynthia Ciarpelli / Shirley Yablonski vs Melody Fredrickson / Marylou Watson2-6, 2-6
L#3 DoublesSally Pearson / Kathleen Jordan vs Ellen Flynn / Nancy Radoff4-6, 0-6
2026-07-09vs Syracuse: FredricksonLost 03
L#1 DoublesLynn Cifonelli / Shirley Yablonski vs Ellen Flynn / Joanne Engelhardt6-4, 2-6, 0-1
L#2 DoublesSally Pearson / Kathleen Jordan vs Ruth Sikora / Gwenn Judge2-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesTina Nabinger / Cynthia Ciarpelli vs Maureen Anderson / Marla Share3-6, 5-7
2026-07-02vs Syracuse: FredricksonSplit 11
W#1 DoublesLynn Cifonelli / Shirley Yablonski vs Ellen Flynn / Melody Fredrickson7-5, 4-6, 1-0
L#2 DoublesTina Nabinger / Susan Berger vs Joanne Engelhardt / Ruth Sikora3-6, 2-6
2026-06-25vs Syracuse: FredricksonLost 12
L#1 DoublesKathleen Jordan / Patricia McClary vs Ruth Sikora / Lynda Otis2-6, 5-7
L#2 DoublesSally Pearson / Cynthia Ciarpelli vs Joanne Engelhardt / Ellen Flynn3-6, 2-6
W#3 DoublesLynn Cifonelli / Susan Berger vs Marla Share / Nancy Radoff6-3, 6-3
2026-06-18vs Syracuse: FredricksonWon 21
L#1 DoublesTina Nabinger / Patricia McClary vs Melody Fredrickson / Ruth Sikora4-6, 3-6
W#2 DoublesLynn Cifonelli / Susan Berger vs Gwenn Judge / Joanne Engelhardt6-1, 6-3
W#3 DoublesSally Pearson / Kathleen Jordan vs Maureen Anderson / Marylou Watson6-4, 6-4
2026-06-11vs Syracuse: FredricksonLost 12
L#1 DoublesSally Pearson / Shirley Yablonski vs Ellen Flynn / Melody Fredrickson1-6, 5-7
L#2 DoublesTina Nabinger / Patricia McClary vs Joanne Engelhardt / Gwenn Judge4-6, 7-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesLynn Cifonelli / Susan Berger vs Lynda Otis / Marylou Watson6-1, 6-4
2026-06-04vs Syracuse: FredricksonLost 12
L#1 DoublesTina Nabinger / Shirley Yablonski vs Ellen Flynn / Melody Fredrickson6-7, 5-7
L#2 DoublesSally Pearson / Kathleen Jordan vs Lynda Otis / Ruth Sikora5-7, 1-6
W#3 DoublesLynn Cifonelli / Susan Berger vs Maureen Anderson / Elizabeth Hill7-6, 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 standings for 7.0 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 5 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.

3.22
Susan Berger
usually #3 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published 3.5
3.08
Shirley Yablonski
usually #1 Doubles 80%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published
2.89
Kathleen Jordan
usually #2 Doubles 40%, also #3 Doubles 40% · published 3.5
2.83
Cynthia Ciarpelli
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
2.77
Audrey Sauer
published 3
Lynn Cifonelli
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
Patricia McClary
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
Sally Pearson
usually #3 Doubles 44%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
Tina Nabinger
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 33% · 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.

Sally Pearson + Shirley Yablonski7355% gamesnot enough data
Kathleen Jordan + Sally Pearson3347% gamesnot enough data
Lynn Cifonelli + Susan Berger5163% gamesnot enough data
Patricia McClary + Tina Nabinger1446% gamesnot enough data
Tina Nabinger + Shirley Yablonski3251% gamesnot enough data
Kathleen Jordan + Cynthia Ciarpelli3256% gamesnot enough data
Tina Nabinger + Kathleen Jordan123 matchesnot enough data
Tina Nabinger + Lynn Cifonelli123 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
Susan Berger
92W–82L career · 5 lines in 2026
6%92%2%
3.22
Shirley Yablonski
51W–47L career · 5 lines in 2026
28%71%<1%
3.08
3.5
Kathleen Jordan
77W–119L career · 5 lines in 2026
79%21%<1%
2.89
3.5
Cynthia Ciarpelli
56W–57L career · 3 lines in 2026
89%11%<1%
2.83
3
Audrey Sauer
8W–32L career · no lines in 2026
3%92%5%
2.77
Lynn Cifonelli
16W–11L career · 6 lines in 2026
not enough data
Patricia McClary
29W–35L career · 4 lines in 2026
not enough data
Sally Pearson
18W–37L career · 9 lines in 2026
not enough data
Tina Nabinger
13W–24L career · 6 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.