Teams

High Point/Becker W7.0

2025 DALLAS TENNIS 65 & Over ADULT Friday · W7.0

11 players · average NTRP 3.50 / TEXAS

No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2025-05-23vs SpringPark/Dwiggins-Martinez W7.0Lost 12
L#1 DoublesPhyllis Charles / Stephanie Bice vs Mary Ann Walters / Debra Driscoll3-6, 0-6
W#2 DoublesDonna Bickerstaff / Debbie James vs Cindy Neyland / Margaret Cooley7-6, 4-6, 1-0
L#3 DoublesJulie Altenau / Jackie Coburn vs Cynthia Collins / Betty Evans3-6, 3-6
2025-04-11vs SpringPark/Dwiggins-Martinez W7.0Lost 12
L#1 DoublesDebbie James / Julie Altenau vs Mary Ann Walters / Debra Driscoll2-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesStephanie Bice / Jackie Coburn vs Margaret Cooley / Jill Kennedy0-6, 6-7
W#3 DoublesKarla Jenkins / Leslee Herling vs Mary Dwiggins / Charlotte Ereckson4-6, 7-6, 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.

Flight standings for W7.0 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 3.21 estimated across 4 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.

3.53
Donna Bickerstaff
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.22
Debbie James
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.05
Leslee Herling
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.05
Karla Jenkins
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Jackie Coburn
usually #3 Doubles 40%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published
Jan Gann
published
Julie Altenau
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
Phyllis Charles
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Sheila Conner
published
Sherry Gehring
published
Stephanie Bice
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · 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.

Donna Bickerstaff + Debbie James213 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.

Donna Bickerstaff
17W–10L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%42%58%
3.53
3.5
Debbie James
4W–4L career · 2 lines in 2025
6%92%2%
3.22
Leslee Herling
8W–17L career · 1 line in 2025
36%64%<1%
3.05
Karla Jenkins
4W–8L career · 1 line in 2025
37%63%<1%
3.05
Jackie Coburn
8W–11L career · 5 lines in 2025
not enough data
Jan Gann
0W–7L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Julie Altenau
11W–9L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Phyllis Charles
1W–3L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Sheila Conner
5W–7L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Sherry Gehring
1W–11L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Stephanie Bice
5W–10L career · 2 lines 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.