Teams

EE:String Theory:Gale/Demas

2026 VT Adult 65 & Over Women · 7.0 Adult 65 & Over Women Div 1

15 players · average NTRP 3.60 / VERMONT

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2026-05-09vs OC:Prime Time:Foulk/JacksonLost 02
L#1 DoublesAnn Laramee / Dawn Bugbee vs Jennifer Dembinski / Rebecca Foulk5-7, 4-6
L#2 DoublesCarol Bouyea / Marjorie Gale vs Marion Hampton / Judy Wild4-6, 1-6
2026-05-02vs OC:Prime Time:Foulk/JacksonWon 21
W#1 DoublesCynthia Sherburne / Martha Small vs Jennifer Dembinski / Judith Jackson6-4, 6-3
L#2 DoublesDawn Bugbee / Linda Morgan-Yatzor vs Karen Didricksen / Rebecca Foulk0-6, 1-6
W#3 DoublesLiz Demas / Sarah Ellis vs Marion Hampton / Joan Holcombe7-5, 4-6, 1-0
2026-04-25vs OC:Prime Time:Foulk/JacksonWon 20
W#1 DoublesSarah Ellis / Lisa Strausser vs Karen Didricksen / Rebecca Foulk6-4, 6-2
W#2 DoublesPeggy Cohen / Linda Morgan-Yatzor vs Jennifer Dembinski / Judith Jackson6-3, 5-4
2026-04-18vs OC:Prime Time:Foulk/JacksonLost 12
L#1 DoublesPatricia Sabalis / Martha Small vs Jennifer Dembinski / Joan Holcombe2-6, 5-7
L#2 DoublesDawn Bugbee / Peggy Cohen vs Rebecca Foulk / Carol Williams4-6, 0-6
W#3 DoublesLiz Demas / Sarah Ellis vs Karen Didricksen / Judith Jackson7-5, 4-6, 1-0
2026-03-28vs OC:Prime Time:Foulk/JacksonWon 30
W#1 DoublesCynthia Sherburne / Martha Small vs Carol Williams / Rebecca Foulk6-1, 7-5
W#2 DoublesAnn Laramee / Linda Morgan-Yatzor vs Jennifer Dembinski / Judith Jackson6-3, 4-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesCarol Bouyea / Lisa Strausser vs Priscilla Geoghegan / Joan Holcombe7-5, 6-2
2026-03-14vs OC:Prime Time:Foulk/JacksonWon 21
W#1 DoublesSarah Ellis / Patricia Sabalis vs Jennifer Dembinski / Judith Jackson6-1, 6-3
L#2 DoublesSarah Brown / Marjorie Gale vs Rebecca Foulk / Joan Holcombe6-7, 2-6
W#3 DoublesAllyson Bolduc / Susan Thornburg vs Priscilla Geoghegan / Judy Wild4-6, 6-0, 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 standings2 teams · 7.0 Adult 65 & Over Women Div 1
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1EE:String Theory:Gale/Demas4212616149
2OC:Prime Time:Foulk/Jackson2461224177

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 3.18 estimated across 10 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.

3.82
Allyson Bolduc
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.32
Lisa Strausser
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.29
Cynthia Sherburne
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
Ann Laramee
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.18
Peggy Cohen
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.15
Martha Small
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
3.11
Linda Morgan-Yatzor
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.08
Carol Bouyea
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.02
Susan Thornburg
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.90
Sarah Ellis
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
2.88
Dawn Bugbee
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
Liz Demas
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Marjorie Gale
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Patricia Sabalis
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Sarah Brown
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.

Linda Morgan-Yatzor + Peggy Cohen5348% games−5.6% vs expected
Liz Demas + Sarah Ellis4546% gamesnot enough data
Cynthia Sherburne + Martha Small3444% gamesnot enough data
Lisa Strausser + Carol Bouyea1435% gamesnot enough data
Linda Morgan-Yatzor + Dawn Bugbee0532% gamesnot enough data
Liz Demas + Linda Morgan-Yatzor044 matchesnot enough data
Patricia Sabalis + Ann Laramee224 matchesnot enough data
Marjorie Gale + Carol Bouyea123 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.

4
Allyson Bolduc
46W–27L career · 3 lines in 2026
1%89%10%
3.82
Lisa Strausser
64W–50L career · 2 lines in 2026
1%89%10%
3.32
3.5
Cynthia Sherburne
26W–41L career · 4 lines in 2026
2%91%7%
3.29
3.5
Ann Laramee
13W–14L career · 2 lines in 2026
not enough data
Peggy Cohen
38W–32L career · 2 lines in 2026
10%89%1%
3.18
Martha Small
41W–42L career · 4 lines in 2026
13%86%1%
3.15
Linda Morgan-Yatzor
46W–68L career · 3 lines in 2026
>99%<1%<1%
3.11
3.5
Carol Bouyea
22W–35L career · 2 lines in 2026
28%72%<1%
3.08
Susan Thornburg
16W–7L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%43%57%
3.02
Sarah Ellis
14W–21L career · 4 lines in 2026
76%24%<1%
2.90
3.5
Dawn Bugbee
13W–22L career · 3 lines in 2026
80%20%<1%
2.88
Liz Demas
16W–29L career · 2 lines in 2026
not enough data
Marjorie Gale
7W–14L career · 2 lines in 2026
not enough data
Patricia Sabalis
13W–14L career · 2 lines in 2026
not enough data
Sarah Brown
14W–9L career · no lines in 2026
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.