Teams

Florida/Mushock/65&Over6.0W

2025 Collier Adult 65 & Over Winter · 6.0 Adult 65 & over - Women

13 players · average NTRP 3.00 / REGION_7

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2025-03-04vs Village Walk Bonita / GreekLost 12
L#1 DoublesPaula Federman / Beth Gilman vs Vicki MacE / Janet Martin1-6, 7-5, 0-1
W#2 DoublesMaureen Ferguson / Helen Sharp vs Leslie Prinz / Mary McIntire6-3, 7-6
L#3 DoublesSuzan Cook / Stephanie Eldredge vs Diane Cosner / Betty Zink2-6, 7-5, 0-1
2025-01-28vs Village Walk Bonita / GreekWon 21
L#1 DoublesMarybeth Greco / Helen Wardell vs Janet Martin / Vicki MacE4-6, 6-7
W#2 DoublesPatricia Albrite / Joyce Bunting vs Mary McIntire / Leslie Prinz2-6, 7-5, 1-0
W#3 DoublesPaula Federman / Beth Gilman vs Susan Greek / Betty Zink6-0, 6-0
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 6.0 Adult 65 & over - Women 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 2.79 estimated across 1 rated player. 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.

2.79
Patricia Albrite
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Beth Gilman
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 3
Debra Purcell
published 3
Helen Sharp
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Helen Wardell
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Joyce Bunting
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Marybeth Greco
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Maureen Ferguson
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Paula Federman
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
Rosita Gilsenan
published
Roxy Painter
published
Stephanie Eldredge
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Suzan Cook
usually #3 Doubles 100% · 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.

Roxy Painter + Patricia Albrite1550% gamesnot enough data
Rosita Gilsenan + Patricia Albrite213 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.

Patricia Albrite
8W–9L career · 1 line in 2025
94%6%<1%
2.79
3
Beth Gilman
1W–1L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
3
Debra Purcell
0W–1L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Helen Sharp
3W–4L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Helen Wardell
6W–6L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Joyce Bunting
1W–1L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Marybeth Greco
3W–4L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Maureen Ferguson
8W–5L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Paula Federman
1W–4L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Rosita Gilsenan
4W–5L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Roxy Painter
3W–5L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Stephanie Eldredge
7W–6L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Suzan Cook
0W–3L career · 1 line 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.