Teams

MSIL A55&O 6.0W Burr/Magers-Bloomington

2026 Adult 55 & Over - West League · West MSIL A55 & Over 6.0W

13 players · average NTRP 3.07 / MID-SOUTH ILLINOIS

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
L#3 DoublesCatherine Malin / Lori Baracani vs Amy Armstrong / Linda Kopp4-6, 2-6
L#1 DoublesLinda Hill / Lana Piercy vs Ginny Kerwin / Laura Sedory2-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesNancy Erwin / Naveen Miller vs Kay Lindsay / Elizabeth Weldon0-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesLinda Hill / Kimberly McHenry vs Amy Armstrong / Joann Blair5-7, 3-6
L#3 DoublesDarla Bruder-Goodlick / Lana Piercy vs Deborah Harmon / Marcia Gregory2-6, 2-6
L#1 DoublesTracy Burr / Patty Tobiasz vs Carolyn Boblitt / Amy Armstrong2-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesLori Baracani / Darla Bruder-Goodlick vs Joann Blair / Patricia Bramlet4-6, 6-1, 0-1
L#3 DoublesNaveen Miller / Lana Piercy vs Janet Hogan / Laura Sedory0-6, 0-6
W#1 DoublesKaren Magers / Linda Hill vs Marcia Gregory / Linda Kopp7-6, 6-4
L#2 DoublesDarla Bruder-Goodlick / Lori Baracani vs Carolyn Boblitt / Celeste Ames3-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesNaveen Miller / Lana Piercy vs Joann Blair / Kay Lindsay4-6, 0-6
L#1 DoublesLinda Hill / Chris Anderson vs Celeste Ames / Janet Hogan2-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesTracy Burr / Karen Magers vs Ginny Kerwin / Laura Sedory2-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesNancy Snook / Nancy Erwin vs Carolyn Boblitt / Deborah Harmon4-6, 2-6
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 standings2 teams · West MSIL A55 & Over 6.0W
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1MSIL A55&O 6.0W Gregory-Bloomington50132688
2MSIL A55&O 6.0W Burr/Magers-Bloomington0521326164

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 2.73 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.

2.98
Kimberly McHenry
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #3 Doubles 20% · published 3
2.91
Nancy Snook
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
2.82
Patty Tobiasz
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3
Dana Miyat
published 3
2.64
Karen Magers
usually #2 Doubles 43%, also #1 Doubles 43% · published 3
2.60
Darla Bruder-Goodlick
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.44
Catherine Malin
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
Lana Piercy
usually #3 Doubles 75%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published
Linda Hill
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
Lori Baracani
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
Nancy Erwin
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Naveen Miller
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Tracy Burr
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · 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 Miyat + Karen Magers5256% gamesnot enough data
Karen Magers + Darla Bruder-Goodlick1642% gamesnot enough data
Catherine Malin + Patty Tobiasz3248% gamesnot enough data
Karen Magers + Tracy Burr1433% gamesnot enough data
Catherine Malin + Tracy Burr314 matchesnot enough data
Karen Magers + Patty Tobiasz044 matchesnot enough data
Darla Bruder-Goodlick + Nancy Snook314 matchesnot enough data
Dana Miyat + Linda Hill033 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
Kimberly McHenry
27W–44L career · 5 lines in 2026
<1%55%45%
2.98
3.5
Nancy Snook
23W–40L career · 3 lines in 2026
74%26%<1%
2.91
3
Patty Tobiasz
7W–19L career · 6 lines in 2026
1%89%10%
2.82
3
Dana Miyat
7W–19L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
3
Karen Magers
23W–43L career · 7 lines in 2026
15%84%1%
2.64
3
Darla Bruder-Goodlick
22W–40L career · 3 lines in 2026
24%76%<1%
2.60
3
Catherine Malin
20W–41L career · 1 line in 2026
67%33%<1%
2.44
Lana Piercy
1W–9L career · 4 lines in 2026
not enough data
Linda Hill
4W–17L career · 4 lines in 2026
not enough data
Lori Baracani
3W–4L career · 3 lines in 2026
not enough data
Nancy Erwin
1W–3L career · 2 lines in 2026
not enough data
Naveen Miller
0W–14L career · 3 lines in 2026
not enough data
Tracy Burr
13W–13L 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.