Teams

Lagoon Woernle 3.5 Night

2025 · 2026 Fall USTA Adult 40 & Over Night League Mont

15 players · average NTRP / ALABAMA

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2025-11-18Lost 02
L#1 DoublesLinda Ward / Susan Rife vs Rebecca Stewart / Rachel Todd5-7, 6-1, 0-1
L#4 DoublesElizabeth Doyle / Jennifer Singleton vs Chessie Mann / Amanda Senn1-6, 1-6
2025-10-27Lost 01
L#4 DoublesElizabeth Doyle / Jennifer Singleton vs Stephanie Richardson / Chris Green1-6, 2-6
2025-09-29Lost 02
L#1 DoublesSharon Woernle / Jennifer Singleton vs Sally Wiggins / Daphne Johnston0-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesShirley Garrett / Susan Rife vs Diane Locke / Melissa Chapman4-6, 1-6
2025-09-22Lost 01
L#1 DoublesSusan Rife / Linda Ward vs Amanda Senn / Leslie Calloway2-6, 5-7
2025-09-15Lost 02
L#1 DoublesSusan Rife / Linda Ward vs Jennifer Henderson / Sueanne Reynolds3-6, 4-6
L#1 SinglesJennifer Singleton vs Stephanie Richardson0-6, 0-6
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 standings4 teams · 2026 Fall USTA Adult 40 & Over Night League Mont
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1MG GARRETT8137819249
2Lagoon Mann 3.5 40 Evening72331231349
3Lagoon Woernle 3.5 Night36162964430
4Lagoon- Brooks 40+0944182493

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 3.18 estimated across 12 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.

3.38
Molly Killingsworth
usually #1 Doubles 56%, also #3 Doubles 19% · published
3.35
Rose Pendleton
usually #1 Doubles 57%, also #3 Doubles 29% · published
3.35
Emily Elliott
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
3.32
Holly Sharp
usually #2 Doubles 44%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
3.29
Kelly DeLaitsch
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #4 Doubles 17% · published
3.23
Julie Norris
usually #2 Doubles 55%, also #3 Doubles 18% · published
3.17
Shirley Garrett
usually #3 Doubles 39%, also #2 Doubles 39% · published
3.10
Elizabeth Doyle
usually #4 Doubles 39%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
3.06
Miriam Scharf
usually #1 Doubles 53%, also #2 Doubles 32% · published
3.03
Tammy Hayes
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published
3.01
Tina Ward
usually #1 Doubles 31%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
2.87
Sharon Woernle
usually #2 Doubles 42%, also #3 Doubles 31% · published
Jennifer Singleton
usually #4 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published
Linda Ward
published
Susan Rife
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · 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.

Holly Sharp + Molly Killingsworth5369% games+7.8% vs expected
Miriam Scharf + Molly Killingsworth9358% games−5.0% vs expected
Shirley Garrett + Tina Ward1437% gamesnot enough data
Sharon Woernle + Julie Norris314 matchesnot enough data
Sharon Woernle + Elizabeth Doyle314 matchesnot enough data
Julie Norris + Holly Sharp224 matchesnot enough data
Julie Norris + Shirley Garrett224 matchesnot enough data
Elizabeth Doyle + Shirley Garrett044 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.

Molly Killingsworth
52W–32L career · 16 lines in 2026
<1%80%20%
3.38
Rose Pendleton
22W–24L career · 7 lines in 2026
1%85%15%
3.35
Emily Elliott
13W–12L career · 4 lines in 2026
1%85%14%
3.35
Holly Sharp
63W–29L career · 27 lines in 2026
1%89%9%
3.32
Kelly DeLaitsch
15W–4L career · 6 lines in 2026
2%91%7%
3.29
Julie Norris
24W–18L career · 11 lines in 2026
5%92%3%
3.23
Shirley Garrett
26W–34L career · 13 lines in 2026
11%88%1%
3.17
Elizabeth Doyle
16W–28L career · 18 lines in 2026
24%76%<1%
3.10
Miriam Scharf
24W–19L career · 19 lines in 2026
34%65%<1%
3.06
Tammy Hayes
9W–18L career · 8 lines in 2026
41%59%<1%
3.03
Tina Ward
32W–37L career · 16 lines in 2026
48%52%<1%
3.01
Sharon Woernle
39W–34L career · 26 lines in 2026
<1%82%18%
2.87
Jennifer Singleton
0W–4L career · 4 lines in 2026
not enough data
Linda Ward
10W–0L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Susan Rife
8W–11L career · 4 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.