Teams

Really Old Pearls

2022 65 & Over League · Women 8.0 - 65 & Over

7 players · average NTRP 3.50 / MONTANA

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2022-07-26vs Linda's LadiesLost 03
L#1 DoublesMargaret Moffatt / Willa Craig vs Colleen Green / Jean Clary6-4, 3-6, 0-1
L#2 DoublesPatricia Torgerson / Sally Lentz vs Elizabeth Barton / Gatchina Hessler3-6, 4-6
L#3 DoublesMartha Yates / Shelley Geiszler vs Sharon Warren / Shirley Hansen2-6, 3-6
2022-07-26vs Linda's LadiesWon 21
W#1 DoublesMartha Yates / Shelley Geiszler vs Jean Clary / Karen Vinton6-2, 6-2
L#2 DoublesSally Lentz / Janet Sparano vs Jan DeCosse / Carol Shannon1-6, 4-6
W#3 DoublesWilla Craig / Margaret Moffatt vs Pam Alfred / Linda Stancil6-4, 2-6, 1-0
2022-07-25vs Linda's LadiesWon 21
W#1 DoublesMargaret Moffatt / Willa Craig vs Jan DeCosse / Carol Shannon6-3, 6-2
W#2 DoublesJanet Sparano / Sarah Miller vs Shirley Hansen / Sharon Warren7-5, 6-3
L#3 DoublesPatricia Torgerson / Sally Lentz vs Colleen Green / Jean Clary6-7, 3-6
2022-07-25vs Linda's LadiesLost 12
W#1 DoublesShelley Geiszler / Willa Craig vs Karen Vinton / Jean Clary6-2, 4-6, 1-0
L#2 DoublesSarah Miller / Martha Yates vs Elizabeth Barton / Gatchina Hessler6-1, 4-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesJanet Sparano / Margaret Moffatt vs Pam Alfred / Linda Stancil1-6, 4-6
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 · Women 8.0 - 65 & Over
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Linda's Ladies227512107
2Really Old Pearls225716115

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 3.46 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.

3.46
Margaret Moffatt
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
Janet Sparano
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
Martha Yates
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
Patricia Torgerson
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
Sally Lentz
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
Shelley Geiszler
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
Willa Craig
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #3 Doubles 25% · 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.

Willa Craig + Shelley Geiszler303 matchesnot enough data
Willa Craig + Margaret Moffatt213 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.

3.5
Margaret Moffatt
18W–35L career · 4 lines in 2022
<1%61%39%
3.46
Janet Sparano
1W–2L career · 3 lines in 2022
not enough data
Martha Yates
4W–4L career · 3 lines in 2022
not enough data
Patricia Torgerson
0W–4L career · 2 lines in 2022
not enough data
Sally Lentz
16W–22L career · 3 lines in 2022
not enough data
Shelley Geiszler
10W–9L career · 3 lines in 2022
not enough data
Willa Craig
29W–19L career · 4 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.