Teams

JDS-Johnson

2025 · 2026 MATA USTA Adult 65 & Over - Fall

11 players · average NTRP 2.83 / GEORGIA

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2025-11-04Won 10
W#3 DoublesSonja Martin / Queen Farrow vs Cynthia Conine / Queenie Brost7-5, 6-3
2025-10-13Lost 01
L#1 DoublesQueen Farrow / Anita C Smith vs Debbie Davis / Catherine Goff0-6, 0-6
2025-09-15Lost 01
L#3 DoublesSharon Livingston / Queen Farrow vs Queenie Brost / Mary Katz3-6, 3-6
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 · 2026 MATA USTA Adult 65 & Over - Fall
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1JDS-Johnson7218921204
2RSTC-Conine2791838257

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 2.80 estimated across 11 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.

3.01
Sharon Livingston
usually #3 Doubles 47%, also #2 Doubles 26% · published
3.01
Sonja Martin
usually #1 Doubles 59%, also #2 Doubles 24% · published
2.95
Phyllis Lane
usually #1 Doubles 56%, also #2 Doubles 39% · published
2.90
Hilary Ellwood
usually #3 Doubles 80%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published
2.85
Christine Samet
usually #1 Doubles 65%, also #2 Doubles 35% · published 3
2.82
Sandra Currie
usually #4 Doubles 36%, also #2 Doubles 36% · published
2.79
Peggy Elliott
usually #2 Doubles 43%, also #3 Doubles 36% · published
2.77
Deborah Denson
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 3
2.77
Wanda Young
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.47
Anita C Smith
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 2.5
2.42
Queen Farrow
usually #3 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.

Christine Samet + Sharon Livingston16363% games+6.7% vs expected
Phyllis Lane + Deborah Denson8067% games+3.8% vs expected
Phyllis Lane + Sonja Martin6359% games−1.6% vs expected
Wanda Young + Sharon Livingston3358% games−4.3% vs expected
Phyllis Lane + Hilary Ellwood3254% gamesnot enough data
Sonja Martin + Peggy Elliott4161% gamesnot enough data
Phyllis Lane + Sharon Livingston314 matchesnot enough data
Wanda Young + Sonja Martin213 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.

Sharon Livingston
33W–13L career · 19 lines in 2026
<1%46%54%
3.01
Sonja Martin
27W–8L career · 17 lines in 2026
<1%47%53%
3.01
Phyllis Lane
24W–11L career · 18 lines in 2026
<1%64%36%
2.95
Hilary Ellwood
16W–5L career · 5 lines in 2026
<1%77%23%
2.90
3
Christine Samet
25W–12L career · 17 lines in 2026
1%85%14%
2.85
Sandra Currie
10W–12L career · 11 lines in 2026
1%89%10%
2.82
Peggy Elliott
20W–11L career · 14 lines in 2026
2%91%7%
2.79
3
Deborah Denson
10W–2L career · 4 lines in 2026
2%92%5%
2.77
Wanda Young
7W–7L career · 6 lines in 2026
3%92%5%
2.77
2.5
Anita C Smith
8W–7L career · 3 lines in 2026
0%58%42%
2.47
Queen Farrow
2W–3L career · 3 lines in 2026
71%29%<1%
2.42

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.