Teams

HH:Expectations:Shenk:Brindisi

2025 NH Adult 65 & Over Women Day · 7.0 Women 1

8 players · average NTRP 3.00 / NEW HAMPSHIRE

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
L#1 DoublesJudy Shenk / Nancy Vieira vs Nancy Tothill / Donna Harrigan6-0, 2-6, 0-1
L#2 DoublesLinda Rousseau / Cher Barker vs Virginia West / Maureen DiBartolomeo2-6, 2-6
2025-05-08vs MTS:Helme:FrawleyLost 03
L#1 DoublesNancy Vieira / Debora Thoele -Cziprusz vs Karen Padgett / Nancy Donahue1-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesNancy Pariser / Cher Barker vs Lisa Andrews / Sharon Goolbis3-6, 0-6
L#3 DoublesMichelle Ettelson / Linda Rousseau vs Alice Podesta / Nancy Stehno6-7, 2-6
2025-05-01vs YORK:Phillips:FosterLost 01
L#1 DoublesCher Barker / Michelle Ettelson vs Cindy Adams / Ginger Kraus1-6, 0-6
2025-04-24vs GB:CourtSavvy:Billipp:LovejoyWon 20
W#1 DoublesDebora Thoele -Cziprusz / Nancy Vieira vs Karen Billipp / Donna Stevens4-6, 6-3, 1-0
W#3 DoublesCher Barker / Nancy Pariser vs Linda Bieber / Ruth Gray7-5, 2-6, 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 standings5 teams · 7.0 Women 1
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1HH:Expectations:Shenk:Brindisi0421022136
2MTS:Helme:Frawley061536109
3YORK:Phillips:Foster0651326166
4GH:TripleTroublemakers:Sylvester:Steele07111023181
5GB:CourtSavvy:Billipp:Lovejoy07101125187

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 2.78 estimated across 2 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.

2.96
Debora Thoele -Cziprusz
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.60
Cher Barker
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 3
Judy Shenk
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Linda Rousseau
published
Mary Lou Brindisi
published
Michelle Ettelson
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
Nancy Pariser
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
Nancy Vieira
usually #1 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.

Judy Shenk + Mary Lou Brindisi2541% games−9.6% vs expected
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
Debora Thoele -Cziprusz
33W–29L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%60%40%
2.96
3
Cher Barker
53W–73L career · 4 lines in 2025
23%77%<1%
2.60
Judy Shenk
16W–19L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Linda Rousseau
1W–3L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Mary Lou Brindisi
17W–31L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Michelle Ettelson
1W–6L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Nancy Pariser
8W–18L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Nancy Vieira
43W–64L career · 4 lines in 2025
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.