Teams

MSIL/Fulton&Uphoff40&O4.0W

2025 MSIL Adult 40 & Over -MSIL West League · West MSIL A40 & Over 4.0W

12 players · average NTRP 4.00 / MID-SOUTH ILLINOIS

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 →
Schedule6 played
2025-07-30vs MSIL A40&O 4.0W Scaggs-ChampaignWon 21
W#1 DoublesMaureen Fulton / Kimberly Bellamy vs Laura Boualavong / Teri Scaggs3-6, 6-0, 1-0
L#2 DoublesColleen Curran / Rena Weyrauch vs Laura Podeschi / Beth Hoag3-6, 6-3, 0-1
W#3 DoublesLucinda Uphoff / Stephanie Madix vs Sarah Kim / Molly McMahon6-4, 6-2
2025-07-23vs MSIL A40&O 4.0W Scaggs-ChampaignWon 31
L#1 DoublesKimberly Bellamy / Carol Snyder vs Amanda Campbell / Sharon Jackson1-6, 1-6
W#1 SinglesBecky Wiese vs Beth Hoag6-3, 6-2
W#2 DoublesAmalia Krecik / Lucinda Uphoff vs Susan Novitsky / Sarah Kim5-7, 6-2, 1-0
W#3 DoublesLynda Hruska / Christine Rodeghero vs Marla Golden / Molly McMahon6-3, 7-6
2025-07-16vs MSIL A40&O 4.0W Scaggs-ChampaignWon 40
W#1 DoublesMaureen Fulton / Amalia Krecik vs Sarah Kim / Laura Podeschi6-1, 6-2
W#1 SinglesLucinda Uphoff vs Molly McMahon6-3, 6-0
W#2 DoublesJamie Frey / Kimberly Bellamy vs Beth Hoag / Susan Novitsky6-3, 6-1
W#3 DoublesLynda Hruska / Stephanie Madix vs Angela Woods / Marla Golden6-4, 6-1
2025-07-09vs MSIL A40&O 4.0W Scaggs-ChampaignWon 21
L#1 DoublesColleen Curran / Stephanie Madix vs Teri Scaggs / Laura Boualavong4-6, 2-6
W#2 DoublesJamie Frey / Kimberly Bellamy vs Sharon Jackson / Molly Tracy6-2, 6-1
W#3 DoublesAmalia Krecik / Lucinda Uphoff vs Sarah Kim / Molly McMahon6-4, 6-4
2025-07-02vs MSIL A40&O 4.0W Scaggs-ChampaignWon 31
L#1 DoublesColleen Curran / Rena Weyrauch vs Amanda Campbell / Laura Podeschi3-6, 6-4, 0-1
W#1 SinglesKimberly Bellamy vs Beth Hoag6-4, 6-3
W#2 DoublesLucinda Uphoff / Amalia Krecik vs Laura Boualavong / Susan Novitsky6-3, 6-4
W#3 DoublesStephanie Madix / Christine Rodeghero vs Sarah Kim / Sharon Jackson6-0, 6-2
2025-06-25vs MSIL A40&O 4.0W Scaggs-ChampaignWon 30
W#1 DoublesColleen Curran / Rena Weyrauch vs Teri Scaggs / Susan Novitsky6-2, 6-3
W#2 DoublesBecky Wiese / Lucinda Uphoff vs Sarah Kim / Angela Woods6-1, 6-1
W#3 DoublesKimberly Bellamy / Jamie Frey vs Marla Golden / Molly McMahon6-1, 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 · West MSIL A40 & Over 4.0W
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1MSIL/Fulton&Uphoff40&O4.0W6019514151
2MSIL A40&O 4.0W Scaggs-Champaign0651941258

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 3.81 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.

4.01
Maureen Fulton
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.97
Amalia Krecik
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 4
3.85
Becky Wiese
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 50% · published 4
3.85
Jamie Frey
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.82
Christine Rodeghero
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.81
Stephanie Madix
usually #3 Doubles 75%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 4
Colleen Curran
published 4
3.73
Kimberly Bellamy
usually #1 Doubles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.68
Lucinda Uphoff
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.59
Rena Weyrauch
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4
Jodi Scott
published
Lynda Hruska
usually #3 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.

Christine Rodeghero + Jamie Frey10264% games+9.8% vs expected
Kimberly Bellamy + Jamie Frey10168% games+8.0% vs expected
Amalia Krecik + Lucinda Uphoff13654% games+3.7% vs expected
Jamie Frey + Lucinda Uphoff9463% games+1.1% vs expected
Maureen Fulton + Lucinda Uphoff8069% gamesnot enough data
Stephanie Madix + Becky Wiese4261% gamesnot enough data
Stephanie Madix + Maureen Fulton5162% gamesnot enough data
Becky Wiese + Lucinda Uphoff3350% 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.

Maureen Fulton
87W–42L career · 2 lines in 2025
48%52%<1%
4.01
4
Amalia Krecik
58W–25L career · 4 lines in 2025
<1%58%42%
3.97
4
Becky Wiese
68W–40L career · 2 lines in 2025
1%84%15%
3.85
4
Jamie Frey
103W–51L career · 3 lines in 2025
1%84%15%
3.85
4
Christine Rodeghero
43W–15L career · 2 lines in 2025
1%89%10%
3.82
4
Stephanie Madix
83W–42L career · 4 lines in 2025
1%90%9%
3.81
4
Colleen Curran
39W–23L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Kimberly Bellamy
62W–36L career · 6 lines in 2025
5%92%3%
3.73
4
Lucinda Uphoff
213W–48L career · 6 lines in 2025
10%89%1%
3.68
4
Rena Weyrauch
38W–42L career · 3 lines in 2025
26%73%<1%
3.59
Jodi Scott
8W–15L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Lynda Hruska
19W–7L career · 2 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.