Teams

Bienstock/Memphis

2025 Adult 65 & Over - Memphis · 3.5 Adult 65 & Over Women

11 players · average NTRP 3.33 / TENNESSEE

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2025-07-12vs Sodini/MemphisWon 20
W#1 DoublesConnie Lester / Leigh Hendry vs Deborah Gentile / Marilyn Leblanc6-1, 6-2
W#2 DoublesMary Sutton / Margaret Vestal vs Lisa Sodini / Teri McDowell6-2, 7-5
2025-06-21vs Sodini/MemphisWon 30
W#1 DoublesAndrea Bienstock / Andrea Pressley vs Kay Horne / Teri McDowell6-0, 6-1
W#2 DoublesCarol Himmelstein / Margaret Vestal vs Tracye Burford / Marilyn Leblanc6-1, 6-0
W#3 DoublesCarolyn Wills / Janet Leap vs Deborah Gentile / Linda Fisher6-1, 6-0
2025-05-31vs Sodini/MemphisWon 21
W#1 DoublesKimberly MacQueen / Carol Himmelstein vs Cheryl Sodini / Karen Fenton6-0, 6-2
W#2 DoublesAndrea Bienstock / Andrea Pressley vs Deborah Gentile / Linda Fisher6-2, 6-2
L#3 DoublesJackie Renner Mills / Margaret Vestal vs Lisa Sodini / Teri McDowell3-6, 3-6
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 3.5 Adult 65 & Over 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 3.03 estimated across 9 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.

3.28
Carol Himmelstein
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
Carolyn Wills
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.18
Kimberly MacQueen
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.18
Connie Lester
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.17
Andrea Pressley
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.12
Andrea Bienstock
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3
3.12
Margaret Vestal
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
2.83
Mary Sutton
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.74
Jackie Renner Mills
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.62
Barby Patterson
published 3
Janet Leap
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.

Andrea Bienstock + Andrea Pressley3253% games−8.2% 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.

3.5
Carol Himmelstein
4W–3L career · 2 lines in 2025
2%92%6%
3.28
3.5
Carolyn Wills
2W–2L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Kimberly MacQueen
10W–10L career · 1 line in 2025
9%89%1%
3.18
3.5
Connie Lester
4W–3L career · 1 line in 2025
10%89%1%
3.18
3.5
Andrea Pressley
3W–3L career · 2 lines in 2025
12%88%1%
3.17
3
Andrea Bienstock
6W–7L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%20%80%
3.12
Margaret Vestal
7W–6L career · 3 lines in 2025
20%80%<1%
3.12
Mary Sutton
13W–18L career · 1 line in 2025
1%88%12%
2.83
Jackie Renner Mills
6W–8L career · 1 line in 2025
4%93%3%
2.74
3
Barby Patterson
0W–6L career · no lines in 2025
20%79%<1%
2.62
Janet Leap
1W–0L career · 1 line 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.