Teams

Durboraw

2026 FW Combo Tournament · 6.5 Ladies

6 players · average NTRP 3.00 / TEXAS

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2026-05-24vs SeayLost 03
L#1 DoublesAnn LeBlanc / Charissa Kumar vs Mandy Rhodes / Lindsey Mercer4-6, 7-6, 1-0
L#2 DoublesJULIE PARKE / Maura Jackson vs Cindy Seay / Joan Cauley6-2, 1-6, 1-0
L#3 DoublesSarah Manning / Ildiko Lingvay vs Natasha Chevalier / Manisone Norkeo6-3, 2-6, 1-0
2026-05-23vs HoltLost 02
L#2 DoublesMaura Jackson / Mary Olson vs Kimberly Blakey / Sue Stuecheli2-6, 0-6
L#3 DoublesSusanne Jasper / Ildiko Lingvay vs Ruby Hudnall / Mariann Billings3-6, 6-4, 1-0
2026-05-23vs WeaverWon 21
L#1 DoublesMaura Jackson / Mary Olson vs Melinda Whitlock / Susan May3-6, 3-6
W#2 DoublesAnn LeBlanc / Charissa Kumar vs Eva Gregory / Courtney Morawski7-6, 4-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesDonna Russell / Ildiko Lingvay vs Angela Snow / Leticia Martin6-3, 4-6, 1-0
2026-05-22vs AlsagerLost 02
L#1 DoublesKathleen Jones / Charissa Kumar vs Sonya Springer / Julie McGuire4-6, 6-2, 0-1
L#3 DoublesJULIE PARKE / Susanne Jasper vs Jennifer Kinson / Dalene Alsager4-6, 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 standings9 teams · 6.5 Ladies
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Seay401118108
2Alsager318411107
3Ferrell318411112
4Robinson227511103
5Brueggemeyer226613113
6Randoll/Maack224816113
7Holt136615118
8Durboraw1321022129
9Weaver043919136

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 3.00 estimated across 6 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.

3.26
Susanne Jasper
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.21
Maura Jackson
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
2.98
Charissa Kumar
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.91
Ildiko Lingvay
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.85
Mary Olson
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
2.78
JULIE PARKE
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3
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.

Charissa Kumar + JULIE PARKE7259% games+7.9% vs expected
Charissa Kumar + Maura Jackson7259% games+2.6% 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.

Susanne Jasper
21W–13L career · 2 lines in 2026
2%94%3%
3.26
Maura Jackson
25W–20L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%5%95%
3.21
3
Charissa Kumar
27W–25L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%55%45%
2.98
3
Ildiko Lingvay
19W–12L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%75%25%
2.91
Mary Olson
8W–12L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%87%12%
2.85
3
JULIE PARKE
33W–36L career · 2 lines in 2026
2%94%4%
2.78

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.