Teams

Ricalde/55s/3.5/PAC Day

2025 Man · Cov Adult 55 & Over - Women Day

13 players · average NTRP 3.50 / LOUISIANA

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2025-03-11Won 20
W#1 DoublesMica Rolling / Cindy Ritch vs Karen Tracey / Grace Gambel7-5, 5-7, 1-0
W#2 DoublesRonda Walters / Paula Stein vs Abby Morse / Beth Daschbach6-2, 6-2
2025-01-28Won 20
W#1 DoublesBrenda Read / Pamela Owen vs Grace Gambel / Hope Himel6-3, 7-6
W#2 DoublesCindy Ritch / Ann Boucher vs Karen Tracey / Abby Morse6-4, 3-6, 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 Cov Adult 55 & Over - Women Day 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 3.20 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.

3.27
Brenda Read
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.20
Cindy Ritch
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.20
Ann Boucher
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.14
Deborah Fournet
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
Jeannie Buller
published
Leslie Ricalde
usually #3 Doubles 63%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
Lynn Folkins
usually #3 Doubles 40%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published
Mary Toce
usually #1 Doubles 55%, also #2 Doubles 36% · published
Mica Rolling
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
Pamela Owen
usually #2 Doubles 46%, also #3 Doubles 36% · published
Paula Stein
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Regina Knight
usually #2 Doubles 39%, also #3 Doubles 28% · published
Ronda Walters
usually #2 Doubles 65%, also #1 Doubles 20% · 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.

Lynn Folkins + Mica Rolling123 matchesnot enough data
Ronda Walters + Mary Toce123 matchesnot enough data
Pamela Owen + Deborah Fournet123 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
Brenda Read
4W–1L career · 1 line in 2025
3%92%5%
3.27
3.5
Cindy Ritch
5W–2L career · 2 lines in 2025
7%91%2%
3.20
3.5
Ann Boucher
8W–5L career · 1 line in 2025
8%91%2%
3.20
3.5
Deborah Fournet
7W–8L career · 6 lines in 2025
15%84%1%
3.14
Jeannie Buller
0W–1L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Leslie Ricalde
11W–13L career · 8 lines in 2025
not enough data
Lynn Folkins
9W–6L career · 5 lines in 2025
not enough data
Mary Toce
30W–23L career · 31 lines in 2025
not enough data
Mica Rolling
15W–5L career · 12 lines in 2025
not enough data
Pamela Owen
10W–13L career · 11 lines in 2025
not enough data
Paula Stein
7W–6L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Regina Knight
16W–19L career · 17 lines in 2025
not enough data
Ronda Walters
28W–14L career · 20 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.