← Teams

VTC-Mills/Gaylor

2024 Adult 40 & Over · 3.5 Women

9 players · average NTRP 3.44 · USTA/PACIFIC NW / NORTHERN OREGON

View scouting list →
Scouting

Roster averages 3.18 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.

3.32
Puntrigar Suriyaseang
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published 3.5
3.28
Lynne Nieda
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
—
Denise Dawkins
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.24
Janet Mills
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 38% · published 3.5
3.19
Kyra John
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.19
Heidi Palena
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.18
Kelley Gaylor
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.15
Julie Gorecki
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
2.86
Teresa Darling
usually #3 Doubles 44%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3
Results8 ties
2024-06-22Split 1–1
W#1 DoublesJanet Mills / Denise Dawkins vs Karen Groenweghe / Christine Taylor6-4, 6-1
L#2 DoublesJennifer Bane / Puntrigar Suriyaseang vs Denise Angel / Swathi Karlapati6-4, 7-5
2024-06-01Won 2–1
L#1 DoublesJanet Mills / Puntrigar Suriyaseang vs Kiersten Lake / Chris van Leeuwen6-4, 6-4
W#2 DoublesTina Clancy / Denise Dawkins vs Anne-Marie Lentini / Patricia Eargle7-6, 4-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesNatalya Ramras / Lynne Nieda vs Elizabeth Maguire / Ruth Semon6-2, 6-3
2024-05-26Won 2–0
W#1 DoublesJanet Mills / Tina Clancy vs Andrea Vicino / Trina Newcomb5-7, 6-3, 1-0
W#3 DoublesLynne Nieda / Teresa Darling vs Laurence Dupray / Diana Blebea1-6, 7-5, 1-0
2024-05-19Lost 0–3
L#1 DoublesHeidi Palena / Kyra John vs Angie Urrutia / Trina Newcomb7-5, 6-2
L#2 DoublesJanet Mills / Puntrigar Suriyaseang vs Alison Marr / Crystal Miller6-2, 6-3
L#3 DoublesTeresa Darling / Michele Beaman vs Megan McCarter / Tomoko Hori6-1, 6-3
2024-05-11Won 3–0
W#1 DoublesMichele Beaman / Julie Gorecki vs Shelly Cruze / Barbara Dusicka6-2, 7-5
W#2 DoublesJanet Mills / Heidi Palena vs Michelle Ruby / Margaret Convery6-4, 6-1
W#3 DoublesTina Clancy / Lynne Nieda vs Mary Rudinsky / Stephany Mo6-0, 6-1
2024-04-27Won 2–1
W#1 DoublesJanet Mills / Natalya Ramras vs Karen Groenweghe / Christine Taylor6-4, 6-3
L#2 DoublesKelley Gaylor / Denise Dawkins vs Patricia Sturr / Swathi Karlapati6-4, 6-2
W#3 DoublesJulie Gorecki / Michele Beaman vs Denise Angel / Erin Thole6-1, 6-3
2024-04-20Lost 1–2
L#1 DoublesTeresa Darling / Puntrigar Suriyaseang vs Caroline Popma / Michelle Posey6-4, 6-1
L#2 DoublesKelley Gaylor / Denise Dawkins vs Marcy Bernhardt / Susan Torch6-1, 6-0
W#3 DoublesJulie Gorecki / Kyra John vs Julie Kim / Alexandra Lee6-1, 7-5
2024-04-14Won 2–1
L#1 DoublesJennifer Bane / Puntrigar Suriyaseang vs Kathy Ramsey / Michele Snyder5-7, 6-2, 1-0
W#2 DoublesNatalya Ramras / Heidi Palena vs Cori Pierce / Jeralyn Snellgrove6-3, 6-2
W#3 DoublesTeresa Darling / Michele Beaman vs Linda Degnan / Melanie DeSilva6-4, 3-6, 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.
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.

3.5
Puntrigar Suriyaseang
33W–49L career
0%99%1%
3.32
3.5
Lynne Nieda
62W–51L career
1%99%0%
3.28
3.5
Denise Dawkins
59W–54L career
not enough data
—
3.5
Janet Mills
66W–75L career
1%99%0%
3.24
3.5
Kyra John
42W–40L career
3%96%0%
3.19
3.5
Heidi Palena
79W–62L career
4%96%0%
3.19
3.5
Kelley Gaylor
68W–64L career
10%89%1%
3.18
3.5
Julie Gorecki
33W–22L career
11%89%0%
3.15
3
Teresa Darling
122W–102L career
0%98%2%
2.86

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.