Teams

GATA/55/MILLER/GATEWOOD

2022 STA Adult Combo 55 & over - GATA · Women 6.5 55 & Over

11 players · average NTRP 3.17 / SOUTH CAROLINA

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 →
Schedule3 played
2023-04-20vs GATA/JENKINS/LAURENSWon 10
W#1 DoublesLynda Dowis / Reene Gambrell vs Teresa Abrams / Sharon Sullivan7-6, 6-1
2023-03-13vs GATA/JENKINS/LAURENSWon 30
W#1 DoublesKaren Berry / C L Miller vs Teresa Abrams / Nid Baldwin6-3, 6-3
W#2 DoublesPamela Herron / Dania Walden vs Paulette Jenkins / Lynn Smith6-1, 7-5
W#3 DoublesLynda Dowis / Reene Gambrell vs Tracy Holland / Sharon Sullivan6-2, 6-1
2023-02-20vs GATA/JENKINS/LAURENSWon 20
W#1 DoublesSharon Manning / Lynda Dowis vs Teresa Abrams / Nid Baldwin6-3, 6-0
W#2 DoublesPamela Herron / Dania Walden vs Paulette Jenkins / Alice Hiller4-6, 6-1, 1-0
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 6.5 55 & Over 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 2.93 estimated across 7 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.

3.17
Ann Fago
published 3.5
3.03
Karen Berry
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.00
Dania Walden
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.90
Lynda Dowis
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
2.86
Lori Napper
published
2.84
Lynn Isenhower
published
2.72
Carol Umphress
published 3
C L Miller
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Sharon Manning
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Suzanne Nicholson
published
Terri Reynolds
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.

Lynn Isenhower + Lori Napper6452% games+1.0% vs expected
Karen Berry + C L Miller4164% gamesnot 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
Ann Fago
33W–23L career · no lines in 2022
10%89%<1%
3.17
Karen Berry
12W–7L career · 1 line in 2022
<1%40%60%
3.03
3
Dania Walden
11W–9L career · type S · 2 lines in 2022
<1%51%49%
3.00
Lynda Dowis
9W–5L career · 3 lines in 2022
<1%77%23%
2.90
Lori Napper
13W–16L career · no lines in 2022
<1%86%14%
2.86
Lynn Isenhower
11W–8L career · no lines in 2022
<1%88%11%
2.84
3
Carol Umphress
7W–9L career · type A · no lines in 2022
5%94%1%
2.72
C L Miller
8W–1L career · 1 line in 2022
not enough data
Sharon Manning
3W–3L career · 1 line in 2022
not enough data
Suzanne Nicholson
0W–1L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Terri Reynolds
10W–5L career · no lines in 2022
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.