Teams

Hills/Roset/55&Over9.0W

2025 Hillsborough Adult 55 & Over · 9.0 Adult 55 & Over - Women

7 players · average NTRP 4.50 / REGION_3

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2025-03-22vs HCC - D. AgnewWon 20
W#1 DoublesDianne Albina / Margaret Roset vs Gail Gibson / Tish Wissel6-1, 6-2
W#2 DoublesMichele Ironsmith / Katie Healy vs Denise Agnew / Lisa Ross4-6, 6-2, 1-0
2025-03-01vs HCC - D. AgnewSplit 11
L#2 DoublesDianne Albina / Margaret Roset vs Elizabeth Burdick / Gail Gibson3-6, 7-6, 0-1
W#3 DoublesStephanie Wager / Michele Ironsmith vs Amy Lyons / Lori Gonzalez4-6, 6-1, 1-0
2025-02-27vs HCC - D. AgnewSplit 11
L#1 DoublesDianne Albina / Margaret Roset vs Lori Gonzalez / Karen Olson6-2, 6-7, 0-1
W#2 DoublesMichele Ironsmith / Heather O'Neill vs Lisa Ross / Amy Lyons6-2, 6-3
2025-02-22vs HCC - D. AgnewWon 20
W#1 DoublesMargaret Roset / Dianne Albina vs Lori Gonzalez / Karen Olson7-5, 6-3
W#2 DoublesMichele Ironsmith / Stephanie Wager vs Gail Gibson / Elizabeth Burdick6-2, 6-3
2025-02-08vs HCC - D. AgnewSplit 11
W#2 DoublesDianne Albina / Margaret Roset vs Elizabeth Baldwin / Elizabeth Burdick6-2, 6-3
L#3 DoublesHeather O'Neill / Michele Ironsmith vs Lori Gonzalez / Karen Olson4-6, 4-6
2025-01-18vs HCC - D. AgnewWon 10
W#2 DoublesStephanie Wager / Michele Ironsmith vs Elizabeth Baldwin / Melany Jablonski6-2, 6-2
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 9.0 Adult 55 & 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 4.22 estimated across 7 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 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 4.5
4.39
Stephanie Wager
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 4.5
4.31
Margaret Roset
published
4.20
Dianne Albina
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published 4.5
4.08
Katie Healy
published
4.07
Maki Smith
published
4.00
Janet Karpan
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
Margaret Roset + Dianne Albina3651% games+1.0% vs expected
Michele Ironsmith + Dianne Albina213 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 2025
<1%45%55%
4.51
4.5
Stephanie Wager
55W–29L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%81%19%
4.39
Margaret Roset
8W–6L career · no lines in 2025
1%92%7%
4.31
4.5
Dianne Albina
96W–56L career · 5 lines in 2025
7%92%1%
4.20
Katie Healy
1W–4L career · no lines in 2025
27%73%<1%
4.08
Maki Smith
4W–1L career · no lines in 2025
31%69%<1%
4.07
Janet Karpan
6W–9L career · no lines in 2025
<1%50%50%
4.00

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.