Teams

OP-Phillips (C 55s 6.5W)

2023 Neuse River Combo 55 & Over · 55s 6.5 Women

12 players · average NTRP 3.25 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2023-10-02vs EMERALD-Smith (C 55s 6.5W)Won 10
W#2 DoublesVirgina Wilson / Susan Hardison vs Terry Shoup / Diane McKeel7-5, 6-4
2023-09-19Won 10
W#1 DoublesVirgina Wilson / Katherine James vs Kim Tarkenton / Nancy LeBlanc6-1, 6-1
2023-09-12vs EMERALD-Smith (C 55s 6.5W)Won 10
W#1 DoublesVirgina Wilson / Susan Hardison vs Rachel Smith / Lisa Zurawski6-4, 1-6, 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 standings for 55s 6.5 Women 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 3.09 estimated across 12 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.

3.48
Sandy Phillips
published
3.31
Debra Johann
published 3.5
3.18
Mariana Goldstein
published
3.15
Virgina Wilson
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3
3.15
Donna McNeill
published 3.5
3.12
Katherine James
published
3.09
Kimberly Dunwiddie
published
3.08
Annita Best
published 3
3.00
Susan Hardison
published
2.94
2.87
Lulu Conekin
published
2.75
Yvonne Kleiman
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.

Susan Hardison + Annita Best9176% games+12.0% vs expected
Yvonne Kleiman + Lulu Conekin8166% games−0.3% vs expected
Katherine James + Mariana Goldstein2450% games−5.1% vs expected
Susan Hardison + Katherine James404 matchesnot enough data
Susan Hardison + Lulu Conekin404 matchesnot enough data
Debra Johann + Kimberly Dunwiddie404 matchesnot enough data
Sandy Phillips + Mariana Goldstein404 matchesnot enough data
Susan Hardison + Sandy Phillips303 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.

Sandy Phillips
46W–21L career · no lines in 2023
<1%55%45%
3.48
3.5
Debra Johann
22W–14L career · no lines in 2023
1%92%8%
3.31
Mariana Goldstein
30W–20L career · no lines in 2023
9%91%1%
3.18
3
Virgina Wilson
50W–46L career · 3 lines in 2023
<1%12%88%
3.15
3.5
Donna McNeill
7W–5L career · no lines in 2023
13%87%<1%
3.15
Katherine James
18W–7L career · no lines in 2023
18%81%<1%
3.12
Kimberly Dunwiddie
6W–4L career · no lines in 2023
23%76%<1%
3.09
3
Annita Best
30W–8L career · type A · no lines in 2023
<1%26%74%
3.08
Susan Hardison
33W–9L career · no lines in 2023
<1%50%50%
3.00
Patricia Sena-Bolding
6W–7L career · no lines in 2023
<1%67%33%
2.94
Lulu Conekin
22W–9L career · no lines in 2023
<1%84%16%
2.87
Yvonne Kleiman
15W–21L career · no lines in 2023
3%95%3%
2.75

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.