Teams

GOLDMAN TC 55AW8.0A

2025 ADULT 55&Over · Women 8.0

16 players · average NTRP 3.90 / NO. CALIFORNIA

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 →
Schedule5 played
2025-04-26vs ARAGON HS 55AW8.0ALost 01
L#1 DoublesAmy Jang / Sandy Keenan vs Wendy Gee / Norma Anderson2-6, 0-6
W#1 DoublesJanis Porto / Sandy Keenan vs Faye Chu / Delphine Hill6-1, 6-1
W#1 DoublesJanis Porto / Sandy Keenan vs Elena Caruso / Mimi Lim6-0, 4-6, 1-0
L#1 DoublesSally Brien / Sandy Keenan vs Michele Lindzy / Elizabeth Torrelio3-6, 2-6
2025-03-23vs ARAGON HS 55AW8.0ALost 01
L#2 DoublesAmy Jang / Sandy Keenan vs Rebecca Coker / Lauren Vitelli2-6, 6-3, 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 Women 8.0 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 3.50 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.

3.86
Kelly Stiles
published
3.83
Sandy Keenan
usually #1 Doubles 80%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published 4
Adrienne Ladd
published 4
3.68
Lisa Faber
published
3.66
Marjorie Swain
published
3.66
Evelyn Armstrong
published 4
3.61
Sara Byrne
published
3.56
Sally Brien
published
3.51
Jennifer Hocking
published
3.49
Amelia Morris
published 4
3.33
Martha Ehrenfeld
published
3.28
Paula Mangin
published
3.25
Amy Jang
published 3.5
3.23
Janet Arnesty
published
3.04
Lisa Shaw
published
Janis Porto
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.

Jennifer Hocking + Lisa Faber2345% games−0.4% vs expected
Evelyn Armstrong + Kelly Stiles134 matchesnot enough data
Marjorie Swain + Lisa Faber314 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.

Kelly Stiles
7W–6L career · no lines in 2025
<1%86%14%
3.86
4
Sandy Keenan
126W–88L career · 5 lines in 2025
1%90%9%
3.83
4
Adrienne Ladd
0W–1L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Lisa Faber
21W–19L career · no lines in 2025
8%91%1%
3.68
Marjorie Swain
9W–12L career · no lines in 2025
11%88%<1%
3.66
4
Evelyn Armstrong
11W–9L career · no lines in 2025
11%88%<1%
3.66
Sara Byrne
6W–9L career · no lines in 2025
20%80%<1%
3.61
Sally Brien
10W–20L career · no lines in 2025
33%67%<1%
3.56
Jennifer Hocking
5W–11L career · no lines in 2025
48%52%<1%
3.51
4
Amelia Morris
7W–14L career · no lines in 2025
52%48%<1%
3.49
Martha Ehrenfeld
5W–5L career · no lines in 2025
91%9%<1%
3.33
Paula Mangin
14W–23L career · no lines in 2025
2%94%5%
3.28
3.5
Amy Jang
7W–11L career · no lines in 2025
2%95%3%
3.25
Janet Arnesty
2W–7L career · no lines in 2025
98%2%<1%
3.23
Lisa Shaw
4W–3L career · no lines in 2025
>99%<1%<1%
3.04
Janis Porto
3W–5L career · no 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.