Teams

JDS-D. JOHNSON

2024 · 2025 MATA USTA Adult 55 & Over - Fall

20 players · average NTRP 3.00 / GEORGIA

View scouting list →

Flight standings for 2025 MATA USTA Adult 55 & Over - Fall 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 2.97 estimated across 20 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.

3.42
Peggy Trammell
published
3.42
Peggy Trammell
published
3.35
Tammy Fletcher
published
3.32
Carla Maples
published 3.5
3.29
Sharon Skillen
published
3.25
Jeanne Scurry
published
3.01
Sharon Livingston
published
3.01
Sharon Livingston
published
2.95
Phyllis Lane
published
2.91
Brenda Garnto
published 3
2.90
Hilary Ellwood
published
2.90
Hilary Ellwood
published
2.85
Christine Samet
published 3
2.85
Christine Samet
published 3
2.79
Peggy Elliott
published
2.79
Peggy Elliott
published
2.73
Mary Walker
published
2.55
Barbara Flanagan
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3
2.55
Barbara Flanagan
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3
2.47
Anita C Smith
published 2.5
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 Samet + Sharon Livingston16363% games+6.7% vs expected
Carla Maples + Tammy Fletcher3354% games+2.0% vs expected
Carla Maples + Peggy Trammell7455% games+1.1% vs expected
Phyllis Lane + Hilary Ellwood3254% gamesnot enough data
Phyllis Lane + Sharon Livingston314 matchesnot enough data
Anita C Smith + Sharon Livingston213 matchesnot enough data
Phyllis Lane + Christine Samet123 matchesnot enough data
Sharon Livingston + Mary Walker123 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.

Peggy Trammell
16W–14L career · no lines in 2025
71%29%<1%
3.42
Peggy Trammell
16W–14L career · no lines in 2025
71%29%<1%
3.42
Tammy Fletcher
13W–12L career · no lines in 2025
1%85%14%
3.35
3.5
Carla Maples
17W–12L career · no lines in 2025
1%89%10%
3.32
Sharon Skillen
15W–8L career · no lines in 2025
2%92%6%
3.29
Jeanne Scurry
5W–8L career · no lines in 2025
4%93%4%
3.25
Sharon Livingston
33W–13L career · no lines in 2025
<1%46%54%
3.01
Sharon Livingston
33W–13L career · no lines in 2025
<1%46%54%
3.01
Phyllis Lane
24W–11L career · no lines in 2025
<1%64%36%
2.95
3
Brenda Garnto
2W–3L career · type A · no lines in 2025
<1%73%27%
2.91
Hilary Ellwood
16W–5L career · no lines in 2025
<1%77%23%
2.90
Hilary Ellwood
16W–5L career · no lines in 2025
<1%77%23%
2.90
3
Christine Samet
25W–12L career · no lines in 2025
1%85%14%
2.85
3
Christine Samet
25W–12L career · no lines in 2025
1%85%14%
2.85
Peggy Elliott
20W–11L career · no lines in 2025
2%91%7%
2.79
Peggy Elliott
20W–11L career · no lines in 2025
2%91%7%
2.79
Mary Walker
14W–12L career · no lines in 2025
5%92%2%
2.73
3
Barbara Flanagan
2W–9L career · 2 lines in 2025
36%64%<1%
2.55
3
Barbara Flanagan
2W–9L career · 2 lines in 2025
36%64%<1%
2.55
2.5
Anita C Smith
8W–7L career · no lines in 2025
0%58%42%
2.47

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.