Teams

TCU SCOTT

2026 FW Ladies 65 & Over · 6.0 FW LADIES

15 players · average NTRP 3.00 / TEXAS

View scouting list →
Schedule8 played
2026-06-01vs TCU WEISWon 20
W#2 DoublesTricia Spann / Sue Stuecheli vs Catherine Bass / Joyce Kain7-6, 6-2
W#3 DoublesDenise Cardenas / Bernestine Knight vs Pet Guerra / Jo Anne Golaz6-4, 1-6, 1-0
2026-05-18vs ATC BYARSWon 20
W#2 DoublesDenise Cardenas / Bernestine Knight vs Cass Weyandt / Amanda Gambrell6-4, 6-4
W#3 DoublesKaren Neumann / Marsha Scott vs Marlene Langlois / Lynda Sherrieb6-4, 6-4
2026-05-11vs TCU WEISLost 12
L#1 DoublesNancy Conner / Amy Nelson vs Annette Thompson / Marilyn Riner1-6, 2-6
W#2 DoublesBernestine Knight / Denise Cardenas vs Patti Hebson / Leah Ann Neal6-4, 6-1
L#3 DoublesMaureen Doss / Susie Gilinsky vs Jo Anne Golaz / Pet Guerra6-7, 1-6
2026-04-27vs ATC BYARSWon 20
W#1 DoublesSue Stuecheli / Tricia Spann vs Gayle Howington / Anita Gatchel6-0, 6-0
W#2 DoublesMaureen Doss / Katherine Weeks vs Mary Buffington / Lynda Sherrieb6-2, 6-2
2026-04-20vs TCU WEISWon 30
W#1 DoublesNancy Conner / Amy Nelson vs Marilyn Riner / Petra Townsend6-3, 0-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesLinda Horner / Bernestine Knight vs Jo Anne Golaz / Annette Thompson6-3, 6-1
W#3 DoublesBonnie Sudderth / Karen Neumann vs Patricia Fiering / Cindy Dewar6-1, 7-5
2026-04-06vs ATC BYARSWon 21
L#1 DoublesNancy Conner / Bonnie Sudderth vs Kelley Stetzer / Cass Weyandt4-6, 6-4, 0-1
W#2 DoublesSue Stuecheli / Tricia Spann vs Lynne Byars / Amanda Gambrell7-5, 7-6
W#3 DoublesSusie Gilinsky / Maureen Doss vs Marlene Langlois / Anita Gatchel6-4, 6-0
2026-03-30vs TCU WEISSplit 11
W#2 DoublesDenise Cardenas / Bernestine Knight vs Leah Ann Neal / Joyce Kain6-3, 7-6
L#3 DoublesKatherine Weeks / Cynthia Carter vs Jo Anne Golaz / Mary Rogers6-3, 2-6, 1-0
2026-03-24vs ATC BYARSWon 21
W#1 DoublesSue Stuecheli / Bonnie Sudderth vs Kelley Stetzer / Carole Green6-3, 4-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesKim Bell / Nancy Conner vs Karen Brown / Mary Buffington6-4, 6-1
L#3 DoublesGayle Hale / Linda Horner vs Amanda Gambrell / Lynne Byars3-6, 4-6
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 6.0 FW LADIES 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 2.91 estimated across 10 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.

3.10
Sue Stuecheli
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
3.01
Tricia Spann
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
3.01
Maureen Doss
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
2.94
Bernestine Knight
usually #2 Doubles 80%, also #3 Doubles 20% · published 3
2.92
Denise Cardenas
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 3
2.91
Marsha Scott
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.88
Bonnie Sudderth
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.84
Nancy Conner
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
2.81
Katherine Weeks
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
2.68
Cynthia Carter
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
Gayle Hale
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Karen Neumann
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Kim Bell
published
Linda Horner
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
Susie Gilinsky
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.

Sue Stuecheli + Tricia Spann11171% gamesnot enough data
Nancy Conner + Marsha Scott5069% gamesnot enough data
Bernestine Knight + Denise Cardenas5063% gamesnot enough data
Marsha Scott + Cynthia Carter404 matchesnot enough data
Susie Gilinsky + Linda Horner404 matchesnot enough data
Marsha Scott + Karen Neumann213 matchesnot enough data
Susie Gilinsky + Maureen Doss123 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.

Sue Stuecheli
21W–4L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%24%76%
3.10
Tricia Spann
27W–25L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%46%54%
3.01
Maureen Doss
26W–9L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%47%53%
3.01
3
Bernestine Knight
26W–40L career · 5 lines in 2026
<1%66%34%
2.94
3
Denise Cardenas
19W–6L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%71%29%
2.92
Marsha Scott
40W–25L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%74%26%
2.91
3
Bonnie Sudderth
58W–47L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%80%20%
2.88
Nancy Conner
20W–17L career · 4 lines in 2026
1%87%12%
2.84
Katherine Weeks
16W–18L career · 2 lines in 2026
1%90%9%
2.81
3
Cynthia Carter
5W–5L career · 1 line in 2026
10%89%1%
2.68
Gayle Hale
5W–2L career · 1 line in 2026
not enough data
Karen Neumann
4W–2L career · 2 lines in 2026
not enough data
Kim Bell
21W–8L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Linda Horner
14W–3L career · 2 lines in 2026
not enough data
Susie Gilinsky
7W–4L career · 2 lines in 2026
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.