Teams

Mis-Spok'n

2026 65 & Over League · Women 6.0 - 65 & Over

10 players · average NTRP 3.00 / MONTANA

View scouting list →
Schedule1 played
2026-07-03vs 6.0 Qualifying TeamWon 30
W#1 DoublesVoni Tombari / Sandee Andrews vs Muriel Blevins / Cheryl Stransky6-2, 6-2
W#2 DoublesMarie Lambert / Nancy Bettesworth vs Susan McLauchlin / Pamela Farley7-6, 5-2
W#3 DoublesTerri Ruthruff / Patrisha Crisp vs Delis Olsen / Mardi Robers7-6, 6-1
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 · Women 6.0 - 65 & Over
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Mis-Spok'n1030019
26.0 Qualifying Team0103638

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 2.86 estimated across 8 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
Terri Ruthruff
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.06
Sandee Andrews
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.93
Lori Abbott
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3
2.82
Voni Tombari
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.77
Shirlee Steiner
published 3
2.70
Marie Lambert
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.68
Nancy Bettesworth
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.57
Patrisha Crisp
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
Ginni McHugh
published
Kathleen Bean
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · 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.

Marie Lambert + Sandee Andrews10258% games+4.8% vs expected
Sandee Andrews + Voni Tombari22660% games+1.7% vs expected
Sandee Andrews + Shirlee Steiner5251% games−0.7% vs expected
Shirlee Steiner + Voni Tombari8753% games−3.5% vs expected
Marie Lambert + Nancy Bettesworth383350% games−5.1% vs expected
Kathleen Bean + Ginni McHugh224 matchesnot enough data
Marie Lambert + Shirlee Steiner224 matchesnot enough data
Marie Lambert + Voni Tombari044 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
Terri Ruthruff
94W–44L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%80%20%
3.38
Sandee Andrews
73W–29L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%35%65%
3.06
3
Lori Abbott
12W–4L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%70%30%
2.93
3
Voni Tombari
75W–58L career · 1 line in 2026
1%89%10%
2.82
3
Shirlee Steiner
59W–46L career · no lines in 2026
3%92%5%
2.77
3
Marie Lambert
73W–65L career · 1 line in 2026
7%91%2%
2.70
Nancy Bettesworth
52W–47L career · 1 line in 2026
10%89%1%
2.68
2.5
Patrisha Crisp
14W–37L career · 1 line in 2026
0%31%69%
2.57
Ginni McHugh
3W–3L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Kathleen Bean
21W–16L 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.