Teams

Bethel/Schmid 65s 7.5W Combo Thurs AM

2026 Piedmont Combo 65 & Over · 7.5 Women 65+ Thurs AM

14 players · average NTRP / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule5 upcoming · 3 played
Sep 17 9:30 AM
vs
Hamilton Lakes Swim & Tennis
Sep 24 9:30 AM
vs
Pinetop Tennis Club
Oct 1 9:30 AM
vs
Pinetop Tennis Club
Oct 8 9:30 AM
vs
Pinetop Tennis Club
Oct 15 9:30 AM
vs
Hamilton Lakes Swim & Tennis
2026-09-03vs Atchison 65s 7.5W Combo Thurs AMLost 12
L#1 DoublesVicky Bethel / Jean Schmid vs Nancy McNeill / Ann Evans2-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesMary Fowler / Janis Beshears vs Shelby Rhyne / Evelyn Strader3-6, 4-6
W#3 DoublesMary Jane Tarver / Janet Nicol vs Judy Eaton / Lynda Pegram6-2, 6-2
2026-08-27vs Atchison 65s 7.5W Combo Thurs AMWon 21
W#1 DoublesYvonne Singh / Mary Jane Tarver vs Susan Payne / Mary Jean Nelson6-2, 6-1
L#2 DoublesNancye Milam / Jane Davenport vs Deborah Register / Minerva Loran1-6, 5-7
W#3 DoublesJanet Nicol / Mary Ann Nixon vs Dell Barbee / Theresa Atchison4-6, 6-4, 1-0
2026-08-20vs Atchison 65s 7.5W Combo Thurs AMLost 12
W#1 DoublesMary Jane Tarver / Janet Nicol vs Judy Eaton / Deborah Register6-3, 6-1
L#2 DoublesNancy McCoy / Yvonne Singh vs Nancy McNeill / Ann Evans1-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesJane Davenport / Mary Ann Nixon vs Martha Fogleman / Evelyn Strader5-7, 4-6
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 · 7.5 Women 65+ Thurs AM
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Atchison 65s 7.5W Combo Thurs AM1021225
2Bethel/Schmid 65s 7.5W Combo Thurs AM0112429

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 3.34 estimated across 14 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.

3.65
Yvonne Singh
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
3.59
Sallye Parker
published
3.57
Janet Nicol
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
3.50
Mary Jane Tarver
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
3.38
Mary Fowler
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.38
Gwenda Priest
published
3.38
Nancye Milam
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.36
Jean Schmid
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.36
Kristen Moss
published
3.35
Mary Ann Nixon
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.29
Vicky Bethel
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.03
Jody Susong
published
3.00
Janis Beshears
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.91
Nancy McCoy
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · 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.

Vicky Bethel + Jean Schmid3447% games−7.7% vs expected
Mary Fowler + Mary Ann Nixon1638% gamesnot enough data
Mary Fowler + Sallye Parker2546% gamesnot enough data
Janis Beshears + Jody Susong2344% gamesnot enough data
Mary Jane Tarver + Janet Nicol404 matchesnot enough data
Sallye Parker + Janet Nicol314 matchesnot enough data
Vicky Bethel + Mary Fowler033 matchesnot enough data
Mary Fowler + Jody Susong123 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.

Yvonne Singh
13W–2L career · 2 lines in 2026
15%85%1%
3.65
Sallye Parker
146W–124L career · no lines in 2026
25%75%<1%
3.59
Janet Nicol
13W–2L career · 3 lines in 2026
30%70%<1%
3.57
Mary Jane Tarver
20W–5L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%51%49%
3.50
Mary Fowler
67W–79L career · 1 line in 2026
80%20%<1%
3.38
Gwenda Priest
2W–6L career · no lines in 2026
81%19%<1%
3.38
Nancye Milam
1W–7L career · 1 line in 2026
81%19%<1%
3.38
Jean Schmid
4W–10L career · 1 line in 2026
84%16%<1%
3.36
Kristen Moss
4W–8L career · no lines in 2026
1%84%15%
3.36
Mary Ann Nixon
35W–46L career · 2 lines in 2026
86%14%<1%
3.35
Vicky Bethel
4W–12L career · 1 line in 2026
94%6%<1%
3.29
Jody Susong
3W–8L career · no lines in 2026
42%58%<1%
3.03
Janis Beshears
4W–15L career · 1 line in 2026
50%50%<1%
3.00
Nancy McCoy
9W–12L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%73%26%
2.91

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.