Teams

HCC - Hansen

2022 Hillsborough Adult 40 & Over · 4.5 Adult 40 & Over - Women

9 players · average NTRP 4.40 / REGION_3

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
L#1 DoublesStephanie Wager / Rena Khawam vs Margaret Roset / Karen Olson6-3, 1-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesJillene Davis / Michele Ironsmith vs Meredith Mueller / Judi Alford7-5, 3-6, 1-0
2022-05-07vs HCC - F. AldeenWon 20
W#1 DoublesJillene Davis / Stephanie Wager vs Elaine Aschenbrenner / Shannon Longo7-5, 6-3
W#3 DoublesMichele Ironsmith / Kelly Hansen vs Mary Paul / Farheen Aldeen6-2, 6-1
2022-04-30Won 10
W#2 DoublesMichele Ironsmith / Katie Healy vs Julie Martin / Maria-Claudia Herrera6-4, 6-3
L#1 DoublesAspen Kahl / Joy DSa vs Mollie Simpson / Maki Smith6-3, 2-6, 0-1
L#2 DoublesMichele Ironsmith / Rena Khawam vs Karen Olson / Margaret Roset1-6, 5-7
W#3 DoublesJillene Davis / Stephanie Wager vs Judi Alford / Stephanie Means6-1, 5-7, 1-0
2022-04-16vs HCC - F. AldeenWon 20
W#1 DoublesMichele Ironsmith / Rena Khawam vs Tish Wissel / Angela Bowes6-3, 6-1
W#1 SinglesStephanie Wager vs Shannon Deck6-2, 6-2
2022-04-09Won 10
W#2 DoublesKatie Healy / Michele Ironsmith vs Joy Evans / Susan Fearnow6-2, 4-6, 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 4.5 Adult 40 & 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 4.20 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.

4.51
Michele Ironsmith
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 4.5
4.39
Stephanie Wager
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 25% · published 4.5
4.26
Andria Owen
published 4.5
4.08
Katie Healy
published
4.05
3.94
Aspen Kahl
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
Jillene Davis
published
Lisa Freeman
published
Rena Khawam
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.

Stephanie Wager + Michele Ironsmith19561% games+2.9% vs expected
Jennifer Drukteinis + Aspen Kahl314 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.

4.5
Michele Ironsmith
158W–102L career · 6 lines in 2022
<1%45%55%
4.51
4.5
Stephanie Wager
55W–29L career · 4 lines in 2022
<1%81%19%
4.39
4.5
Andria Owen
6W–5L career · no lines in 2022
2%95%3%
4.26
Katie Healy
1W–4L career · no lines in 2022
27%73%<1%
4.08
4
Jennifer Drukteinis
74W–25L career · type A · no lines in 2022
<1%34%66%
4.05
4.5
Aspen Kahl
111W–53L career · 1 line in 2022
69%31%<1%
3.94
Jillene Davis
0W–2L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Lisa Freeman
2W–2L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Rena Khawam
1W–4L career · no lines in 2022
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.