Teams

Pinetree CC - Kirk

2025 B'ham Spring - 55 & Over Weekday Women, 1:30 pm · 4.0 Women Monday (Partial Round Robin)

12 players · average NTRP 4.00 / ALABAMA

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 →
Schedule2 played
2025-04-07vs BH - Douglas/ThomasWon 21
W#1 DoublesPaige Ritchey / Mimi Smith vs Sally McClanahan / Beth Carroll-Conwell7-5, 6-1
W#2 DoublesKim Hall / Lisa Kirk vs Martha Douglas / Jill ALEXANDER6-4, 7-5
L#3 DoublesCheryl Collat / Mary Beth Cannon vs Nancy Thomas / Teresa Keasler1-6, 2-6
W#1 DoublesMiller Middlebrook / Anne Gauld vs Isabelle Lawson / Nancy Watson6-4, 6-4
L#2 DoublesLisa Kirk / Julie Weinacker vs Beth Welden / Jennifer Beall2-6, 6-4, 0-1
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 4.0 Women Monday (Partial Round Robin) 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 3.64 estimated across 12 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.

3.87
Paige Ritchey
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.81
Kim Hall
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.78
Mimi Smith
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.75
Mary Haines
published
3.62
Agnes Cartner
published 4
3.62
Lisa Kirk
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.61
Cheryl Collat
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.59
Julie Weinacker
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.58
Susan Womack
published
3.57
Anne Gauld
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.46
Miller Middlebrook
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.45
Mary Beth Cannon
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.

Kim Hall + Mimi Smith3350% games−13.7% vs expected
Julie Weinacker + Miller Middlebrook134 matchesnot enough data
Susan Womack + Mary Beth Cannon033 matchesnot enough data
Susan Womack + Lisa Kirk033 matchesnot enough data
Lisa Kirk + Kim Hall123 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.

Paige Ritchey
6W–2L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%83%17%
3.87
Kim Hall
68W–49L career · 1 line in 2025
1%92%7%
3.81
Mimi Smith
41W–19L career · 1 line in 2025
1%94%5%
3.78
Mary Haines
18W–13L career · no lines in 2025
3%95%3%
3.75
4
Agnes Cartner
5W–4L career · no lines in 2025
17%83%<1%
3.62
Lisa Kirk
9W–16L career · 2 lines in 2025
18%82%<1%
3.62
4
Cheryl Collat
7W–6L career · 1 line in 2025
20%80%<1%
3.61
Julie Weinacker
4W–7L career · 1 line in 2025
24%76%<1%
3.59
Susan Womack
4W–19L career · no lines in 2025
28%72%<1%
3.58
4
Anne Gauld
6W–9L career · 1 line in 2025
31%69%<1%
3.57
Miller Middlebrook
11W–12L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%62%38%
3.46
Mary Beth Cannon
7W–12L career · 1 line in 2025
65%35%<1%
3.45

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.