← Teams

MAC-Hunt/Wilcox

2020 Adult 55 & Over · 8.0 Women

10 players · average NTRP 3.95 · USTA/PACIFIC NW / NORTHERN OREGON

View scouting list →
Scouting

Roster averages 3.43 estimated across 8 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.

—
Diana Almy
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4.5
4.06
Stacy Hawkins Parker
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #1 Doubles 20% · published 4.5
—
Kim Stevens
published 4
3.67
Linda Lovett
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.58
Heidi Wilcox
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 4
3.58
Catherine Go
usually #1 Doubles 43%, also #2 Doubles 43% · published 4
3.43
Terri Pickard
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.12
Diana Callaway
published 3.5
3.08
Alison Davis
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
2.91
Nancy Williams
usually #1 Doubles 83%, also #3 Doubles 17% · published 3.5
Results8 ties
2019-11-23Won 2–1
W#1 DoublesCatherine Go / Diana Almy vs Linn Wofford / Marie Picard7-5, 7-6
W#2 DoublesAlison Davis / Stacy Hawkins Parker vs Sharon Grilley / Tamara Witcosky4-6, 6-2, 1-0
L#3 DoublesGinny Larner / Terri Pickard vs Lynn Sosa / Erica Tsuruta6-2, 6-1
2019-11-09Won 2–0
W#1 DoublesShannon Dilorenzo / Nancy Williams vs Sue Edmonds / Linda Conn6-2, 6-4
W#2 DoublesCatherine Go / Heidi Wilcox vs Louanne Fuller / RENEE VANDEGRIEND7-5, 6-2
2019-11-01Won 2–1
W#1 DoublesNancy Williams / Shannon Dilorenzo vs Carol Briggs / Sue Harrison1-6, 6-3, 1-0
W#2 DoublesGinny Larner / Heidi Wilcox vs Anne Fahlbusch / Claire Thayer7-6, 7-5
L#3 DoublesCatherine Go / Reidun Zander vs Cindy Speck / Linda Barker7-5, 4-6, 1-0
2019-10-27Split 1–1
W#2 DoublesCatherine Go / Sally Lovett vs Molly Odonnell / Susan Ford6-3, 6-2
L#3 DoublesHeidi Wilcox / Linda Lovett vs Angie Lee / Carla Wheeler4-6, 6-2, 1-0
2019-10-11Won 2–0
W#1 DoublesDana Hunt / Linda Lovett vs Linn Wofford / Kathryn Smith7-6, 6-4
W#2 DoublesCatherine Go / Diana Almy vs Janet de Morgan / Mary Sides6-3, 6-7, 1-0
2019-10-05Won 2–0
W#1 DoublesShannon Dilorenzo / Nancy Williams vs Cindy Speck / Linda Barker6-0, 6-0
W#2 DoublesHeidi Wilcox / Ginny Larner vs Kay Betton / Sue Harrison6-1, 6-1
2019-10-04Won 2–0
W#1 DoublesCatherine Go / Diana Almy vs Sue Edmonds / Terri Bashkingy6-1, 6-3
W#2 DoublesStacy Hawkins Parker / Alison Davis vs Theresa Berry / Jill Derry6-2, 1-6, 1-0
2019-09-15Won 2–1
L#1 DoublesCatherine Go / Terri Pickard vs Regan Reichle / Boon Yon Joung0-6, 7-5, 1-0
W#2 DoublesStacy Hawkins Parker / Alison Davis vs Julie Hansen / Susan Ford7-6, 6-3
W#3 DoublesDana Hunt / Linda Lovett vs Molly Odonnell / Angie Lee7-5, 7-6
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.
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.

4.5
Diana Almy
50W–38L career
not enough data
—
4.5
Stacy Hawkins Parker
58W–55L career
8%92%0%
4.06
4
Kim Stevens
56W–44L career
not enough data
—
4
Linda Lovett
93W–105L career
4%96%0%
3.67
4
Heidi Wilcox
86W–87L career
15%85%0%
3.58
4
Catherine Go
87W–77L career
18%82%0%
3.58
4
Terri Pickard
44W–44L career
52%48%0%
3.43
3.5
Diana Callaway
7W–35L career
13%87%0%
3.12
3.5
Alison Davis
80W–62L career
27%73%1%
3.08
3.5
Nancy Williams
59W–52L career
59%41%0%
2.91

Three percentages are the year-end projection — chance of moving down, staying, moving up — and the number on the right is our estimated dynamic rating, which USTA never publishes. 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.