Teams

Harris-GGCC

2023 Adult 55 & Over-DLT · Women 3.5

6 players · average NTRP 3.25 / MISSISSIPPI

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2023-04-19vs Reed-CCCSplit 11
W#2 DoublesDana Stubbs / Liz Clements vs Teresa Reed / Hilda Povall6-0, 6-1
L#3 DoublesLaurie Gillespie / Sissy Gardner vs Diane Chenault / Leslie Warrington3-6, 1-6
2023-04-18vs Waldheim-Twin RiversWon 30
W#1 DoublesMarla Bell / Lisa King vs Donna Bagwell / Shawna Young6-1, 6-3
W#2 DoublesDana Stubbs / Liz Clements vs Donna McNeer / Gloria Beauchamp7-6, 4-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesLaurie Gillespie / Sissy Gardner vs Key Britt / Sherry Leard6-0, 6-0
2023-04-11vs Reed-CCCWon 21
W#1 DoublesMarla Bell / Lisa King vs Leslie Warrington / Diane Chenault6-1, 6-4
W#2 DoublesLeigh Harris / Dana Stubbs vs Becky Denton / Rhonda Turner6-1, 6-2
L#3 DoublesDelma Brown / Sissy Gardner vs Hilda Povall / Teresa Reed2-6, 1-6
2023-03-28vs Reynolds-ICCWon 21
W#1 DoublesMarla Bell / Lisa King vs Debbie Boykin / Dorothy Huoni6-3, 6-1
W#2 DoublesLeigh Harris / Liz Clements vs Susan Allen / Irene Long5-7, 6-4, 1-0
L#3 DoublesSissy Gardner / Delma Brown vs Carol Scott / Leigh Ann Reynolds4-6, 4-6
2023-03-23vs Waldheim-Twin RiversWon 10
W#2 DoublesDana Stubbs / Laurie Gillespie vs Kathy Waldheim / Sherry Leard6-1, 6-2
2023-03-21vs Reynolds-ICCWon 20
W#1 DoublesMarla Bell / Lisa King vs Leigh Ann Reynolds / Irene Long4-6, 6-1, 1-0
W#2 DoublesDana Stubbs / Liz Clements vs Dorothy Huoni / Debbie Boykin7-5, 7-5
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 Women 3.5 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 3.10 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.

3.30
Marla Bell
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.25
Liz Clements
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.08
Dana Stubbs
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
2.96
Delma Brown
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.92
Laurie Gillespie
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
Sissy Gardner
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.

Marla Bell + Dana Stubbs4265% games+5.5% vs expected
Laurie Gillespie + Marla Bell5067% games+3.0% vs expected
Liz Clements + Dana Stubbs5549% games−2.6% vs expected
Laurie Gillespie + Dana Stubbs224 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.

Marla Bell
45W–32L career · 4 lines in 2023
1%93%6%
3.30
Liz Clements
18W–20L career · 4 lines in 2023
3%95%3%
3.25
3.5
Dana Stubbs
24W–25L career · 5 lines in 2023
26%74%<1%
3.08
3
Delma Brown
32W–21L career · 2 lines in 2023
<1%61%39%
2.96
Laurie Gillespie
20W–17L career · 3 lines in 2023
<1%73%27%
2.92
Sissy Gardner
1W–5L career · 4 lines in 2023
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.