Teams

STL/Rhoads/65&Over6.0W

2026 STL Adult 65 & Over · Women 6.0

17 players · average NTRP 2.92 / ST. LOUIS

No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
W#1 DoublesNancy Kroc / Pamela Rodriguez vs Shashi Pathak / Irene Schoolfield6-3, 3-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesMarg Westcott / Terri Regelski vs Susan Riemann / Ruth Anne Scheidegger6-4, 6-3
L#3 DoublesBarbara Rhoads / Erin Kirwan vs Carla Burkart / Kelly Rechtlich3-6, 2-6
L#1 DoublesMarg Westcott / Nancy Kroc vs Margaret Ropelle / Susan Riemann2-6, 7-5, 0-1
W#2 DoublesSandra Johnson / Debbie Kopff vs Rebecca Hartfield / Judy Alles6-2, 6-2
L#3 DoublesBarbara Rhoads / Diana Kennedy vs Carla Burkart / Kelly Rechtlich3-6, 6-3, 0-1
W#1 DoublesBarb McGauley / Marg Westcott vs Margaret Ropelle / Susan Riemann2-6, 6-2, 1-0
L#2 DoublesLinda Eisenbeis / Ginger Kluesner vs Shashi Pathak / Irene Schoolfield1-6, 2-6
W#3 DoublesNancy Kroc / Pamela Rodriguez vs Carla Burkart / Kelly Rechtlich7-5, 6-1
W#1 DoublesBarb McGauley / Marg Westcott vs Kelly Rechtlich / Carla Burkart7-5, 6-3
L#2 DoublesLinda Eisenbeis / Ginger Kluesner vs Irene Schoolfield / Judy Alles2-6, 6-5, 0-1
L#3 DoublesErin Kirwan / Diana Kennedy vs Shashi Pathak / Margaret Ropelle3-6, 2-6
W#1 DoublesBarb McGauley / Marg Westcott vs Ruth Anne Scheidegger / Shashi Pathak6-4, 6-0
L#2 DoublesSandra Johnson / Terri Regelski vs Susan Riemann / Margaret Ropelle3-6, 6-7
W#3 DoublesDebbie Kopff / Nancy Kroc vs Irene Schoolfield / Judy Alles6-2, 6-3
L#1 DoublesBarb McGauley / Debbie Kopff vs Irene Schoolfield / Shashi Pathak6-2, 0-6, 0-1
W#2 DoublesMarg Westcott / Terri Regelski vs Rebecca Hartfield / Judy Alles6-2, 1-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesLinda Eisenbeis / Ginger Kluesner vs Gail Frapolli / Mary Kimberly Bohnenkamp6-1, 6-3
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 · Women 6.0
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1STL/Rhoads/65&Over6.0W4210819155
2STLWC/Rechtlich/Burkart/65&Over6.0W2481024167

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 2.72 estimated across 13 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.

3.35
Anne Ross
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.15
Linda Eisenbeis
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 17% · published
2.88
Nancy Kroc
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
2.84
Mary Strouth
published
2.81
Pamela Rodriguez
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
Diana Kennedy
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.75
Barb McGauley
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.73
Debbie Kopff
usually #2 Doubles 33%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.64
Marg Westcott
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
2.60
Mary Shadrach
published
2.56
Terri Regelski
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.40
Ginger Kluesner
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
2.34
Denise Walkenhorst
published 2.5
2.30
Barbara Rhoads
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
Erin Kirwan
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Jan Baggett
published
Sandra Johnson
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.

Linda Eisenbeis + Debbie Kopff1443% games−3.1% vs expected
Barbara Rhoads + Ginger Kluesner1540% gamesnot enough data
Barbara Rhoads + Mary Shadrach4258% gamesnot enough data
Sandra Johnson + Linda Eisenbeis044 matchesnot enough data
Ginger Kluesner + Mary Shadrach134 matchesnot enough data
Nancy Kroc + Erin Kirwan123 matchesnot enough data
Terri Regelski + Diana Kennedy123 matchesnot enough data
Terri Regelski + Marg Westcott213 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 Ross
113W–75L career · 6 lines in 2026
1%84%15%
3.35
Linda Eisenbeis
57W–77L career · 6 lines in 2026
14%86%1%
3.15
Nancy Kroc
111W–90L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%80%19%
2.88
Mary Strouth
47W–83L career · no lines in 2026
1%87%12%
2.84
Pamela Rodriguez
68W–66L career · 2 lines in 2026
1%90%9%
2.81
3
Diana Kennedy
12W–40L career · 2 lines in 2026
not enough data
3
Barb McGauley
60W–76L career · 4 lines in 2026
4%93%3%
2.75
3
Debbie Kopff
5W–19L career · 3 lines in 2026
5%92%3%
2.73
Marg Westcott
67W–47L career · 6 lines in 2026
16%83%<1%
2.64
Mary Shadrach
129W–162L career · no lines in 2026
24%76%<1%
2.60
Terri Regelski
64W–119L career · 3 lines in 2026
32%68%<1%
2.56
Ginger Kluesner
32W–61L career · 3 lines in 2026
77%23%<1%
2.40
2.5
Denise Walkenhorst
21W–88L career · no lines in 2026
0%88%12%
2.34
2.5
Barbara Rhoads
40W–67L career · 2 lines in 2026
0%92%8%
2.30
Erin Kirwan
20W–65L career · 2 lines in 2026
not enough data
Jan Baggett
10W–24L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Sandra Johnson
13W–23L career · no 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.