Teams

Sodini/Memphis

2025 Adult 55 & Over-Memphis · 3.5 Women 55 & Over

10 players · average NTRP 3.17 / TENNESSEE

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2025-03-29vs Kershner/MemphisLost 03
L#1 DoublesCindy Barnett / Lisa Sodini vs Patricia Alfonso / Dana Holland-Beickert0-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesBarby Patterson / Cheryl Sodini vs Nan Gallina / Joanne Sandefer3-6, 2-6
L#3 DoublesGinger Hopkins / Pamela Gold vs Judy Butterfield / Deborah Kershner0-6, 0-6
2025-03-22vs McCarty/MemphisLost 02
L#1 DoublesBarby Patterson / Anne Thielemier vs Nancy Goodwin / Angela Payne1-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesKay Horne / Dana Ferry vs Carolyn Santos / Betty Clark1-6, 3-6
2025-03-20vs Rucker/MemphisLost 03
L#1 DoublesCindy Barnett / Lisa Sodini vs Xiaoqun Akers / Sandra Horn4-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesDana Ferry / Ginger Hopkins vs Melinda Hoehn / Cathy Poulin1-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesKay Horne / Pamela Gold vs Terrie Dietsch / Cheryl Murphy4-6, 0-6
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 Women 55 & Over 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 2.86 estimated across 4 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.

Anne Thielemier
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.18
Cindy Barnett
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
2.82
Teri McDowell
published
2.78
Dana Ferry
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
Cheryl Sodini
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
Ginger Hopkins
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3
2.66
Barby Patterson
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3
Kay Horne
usually #2 Doubles 80%, also #3 Doubles 20% · published
Lisa Sodini
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Pamela Gold
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.

Dana Ferry + Ginger Hopkins0523% games−16.4% vs expected
Teri McDowell + Lisa Sodini134 matchesnot enough data
Barby Patterson + Teri McDowell033 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.

3.5
Anne Thielemier
4W–9L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
3.5
Cindy Barnett
4W–8L career · 2 lines in 2025
8%91%1%
3.18
Teri McDowell
1W–15L career · no lines in 2025
92%8%<1%
2.82
3
Dana Ferry
0W–9L career · 2 lines in 2025
2%94%4%
2.78
3
Cheryl Sodini
0W–7L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
3
Ginger Hopkins
0W–7L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
3
Barby Patterson
0W–8L career · 2 lines in 2025
11%88%<1%
2.66
Kay Horne
6W–18L career · 5 lines in 2025
not enough data
Lisa Sodini
1W–6L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Pamela Gold
0W–5L career · 2 lines 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.