Teams

LATA/REAM/CAMP

2026 Combo 40 & Over-STA · Adult Women - 7.5

14 players · average NTRP 3.83 / SOUTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule3 upcoming · 6 played
Sep 9 6:30 PM
Lexington County Tennis Complex
Sep 23 6:30 PM
vs N/A
Page Ream
Sep 30 6:30 PM
Saluda Shoals Park
2026-09-02vs LATA40/RANGEL/CAMPWon 21
W#1 DoublesLouise Burpee / Missy Graczyk vs Courtney Nicholson / Debra Sklar6-1, 6-4
L#2 DoublesAnne Blackmon / Maryann Simons vs Leslie Downs / Nancy Butts Foy4-6, 4-6
W#3 DoublesPage Ream / Theresa Stader vs Susan Mathews / Wendel Franklin6-4, 6-1
2026-08-30vs LATA40/Henderson/LCCWon 21
W#1 DoublesTheresa Stader / Cindy Bane vs Aubrey Hutto / Donna Shevchik6-7, 7-5, 1-0
W#2 DoublesPage Ream / Sandy Shannon vs Christina Kaye Huff / Page Edwards6-4, 6-2
L#3 DoublesAngel Roddy / Missy Graczyk vs Casie Henderson / Lisa Dahlquist4-6, 3-6
2026-08-19vs LATA40-Taylor-SSPWon 21
W#1 DoublesAngel Roddy / Tina Saxon vs Debe Hanners / Dana Burke6-2, 4-6, 1-0
L#2 DoublesMaureen Swindall / Susie Leroy vs Kristen Stevenson Fallon / Danielle Hilton2-6, 1-6
W#3 DoublesAnne Blackmon / Wanda Pipes vs Susan Taylor / Kerry Allen6-3, 4-6, 1-0
2026-08-10vs LATA40/Kleemoff/LCTCWon 30
W#1 DoublesAnne Blackmon / Tina Saxon vs Denise Holmes / Rita Squires6-1, 7-5
W#2 DoublesMaureen Swindall / Missy Graczyk vs Amanda Turpin / Lorri Cold6-2, 6-3
W#3 DoublesCindy Bane / Louise Burpee vs Debbie Gee / Betty Joyce6-1, 6-1
2026-07-29vs LATA40/RANGEL/CAMPWon 30
W#1 DoublesCindy Bane / Louise Burpee vs Jane Rangel / Lisette Geib6-0, 6-4
W#2 DoublesTina Saxon / Sandy Shannon vs Paula Howker Amick / Debra Sklar7-6, 0-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesAngel Roddy / Missy Graczyk vs Molly Price / Sally Keiper6-1, 6-1
2026-07-22vs LATA40/Henderson/LCCWon 21
L#1 DoublesTheresa Stader / Maryann Simons vs Tasha Overmyer / Page Edwards6-0, 4-6, 0-1
W#2 DoublesMaureen Swindall / Missy Graczyk vs Jan Bigg / Christina Kaye Huff6-2, 6-3
W#3 DoublesAnne Blackmon / Wanda Pipes vs Kelly Delk / Tracy Trivison1-6, 6-4, 1-0
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 standings5 teams · Adult Women - 7.5
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1LATA/REAM/CAMP40102882
2LATA40-Taylor-SSP31841196
3LATA40/Henderson/LCC136613106
4LATA40/RANGEL/CAMP133918121
5LATA40/Kleemoff/LCTC133918130

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 3.49 estimated across 14 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.

3.78
Theresa Stader
usually #1 Doubles 63%, also #3 Doubles 38% · published
3.73
Louise Burpee
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
3.66
Maureen Swindall
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.65
Sandy Shannon
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.62
Anne Blackmon
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 4
3.59
Angel Roddy
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.51
Page Ream
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
3.43
Missy Graczyk
usually #1 Doubles 40%, also #3 Doubles 30% · published
3.40
Kirsten Lackstrom
published
3.39
Cindy Bane
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.34
Susie Leroy
usually #2 Doubles 80%, also #3 Doubles 20% · published
3.29
Maryann Simons
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
3.23
Tina Saxon
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.17
Wanda Pipes
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.

Susie Leroy + Cindy Bane6072% games+14.2% vs expected
Page Ream + Cindy Bane19163% games+4.9% vs expected
Angel Roddy + Page Ream11655% games+4.2% vs expected
Sandy Shannon + Page Ream5162% games−0.5% vs expected
Anne Blackmon + Tina Saxon2931% games−10.1% vs expected
Maureen Swindall + Missy Graczyk224 matchesnot enough data
Wanda Pipes + Tina Saxon314 matchesnot enough data
Kirsten Lackstrom + Maryann Simons404 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.

Theresa Stader
46W–34L career · 8 lines in 2026
2%92%6%
3.78
Louise Burpee
15W–11L career · 3 lines in 2026
5%92%3%
3.73
Maureen Swindall
8W–12L career · 3 lines in 2026
13%86%1%
3.66
Sandy Shannon
127W–38L career · 2 lines in 2026
13%86%1%
3.65
4
Anne Blackmon
15W–33L career · 4 lines in 2026
19%81%<1%
3.62
4
Angel Roddy
90W–61L career · 3 lines in 2026
25%75%<1%
3.59
Page Ream
78W–37L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%47%53%
3.51
Missy Graczyk
25W–15L career · 10 lines in 2026
<1%69%31%
3.43
Kirsten Lackstrom
26W–8L career · no lines in 2026
<1%75%25%
3.40
3.5
Cindy Bane
81W–31L career · 6 lines in 2026
<1%79%21%
3.39
Susie Leroy
26W–14L career · 5 lines in 2026
1%87%13%
3.34
Maryann Simons
16W–12L career · 2 lines in 2026
2%91%7%
3.29
Tina Saxon
19W–25L career · 3 lines in 2026
5%92%3%
3.23
Wanda Pipes
36W–49L career · 2 lines in 2026
12%87%1%
3.17

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.