Teams

KS/WC2/Smith/40&Over3.0W

2021 KS 40 & Over Adult Outdoor League · 3.0 Women

11 players · average NTRP 3.30 / KANSAS

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2021-05-15vs Pushyk-Wichita-Genesis Rock RdLost 13
W#1 DoublesDana Huffaker / Michelle Peck vs Libby Marshall / Regine Feilmeier7-5, 4-6, 1-0
L#1 SinglesShelly Power vs Cathy Suellentrop3-6, 6-4, 1-0
L#2 DoublesShelley Schroeder / Betty Henderson vs Kim Dinkel / Snizhana Zhdanova7-6, 2-4, 0-1
L#3 DoublesJean Boardman / Kim Disberger vs Dana Hill / Debra Ferris2-6, 4-6
2021-05-15vs Pushyk-Wichita-Genesis Rock RdSplit 22
L#1 DoublesDana Huffaker / Michelle Peck vs Kim Dinkel / Cathy Suellentrop4-6, 1-6
W#1 SinglesAllison Heigele vs Patricia Thompson6-1, 6-0
W#2 DoublesMisti May / Shelley Schroeder vs Regine Feilmeier / Snizhana Zhdanova3-6, 6-1, 1-0
L#3 DoublesKim Disberger / Shelly Power vs Debra Ferris / Libby Marshall6-4, 2-6, 0-1
2021-05-01vs Obr/Harris - CrestviewSplit 22
W#1 DoublesMisti May / Allison Heigele vs DENISE OBR / Lily Fang-Yen6-2, 3-6, 1-0
L#1 SinglesShelly Power vs Lisa Cole3-6, 1-6
W#2 DoublesDana Huffaker / Michelle Peck vs Melanie Cooper / Terri Cusick7-6, 6-1
L#3 DoublesJean Boardman / Ellen Kampfe vs Kelly Dandurand / Chandra Knowles6-4, 4-6, 0-1
2021-05-01vs Obr/Harris - CrestviewSplit 22
W#1 DoublesMisti May / Michelle Peck vs Angela Vetter / Chandra Knowles6-4, 6-4
L#1 SinglesAllison Heigele vs Olivia Cartwright3-6, 7-5, 0-1
L#2 DoublesShelly Power / Dana Huffaker vs Lisa Cole / DENISE OBR4-6, 3-6
W#3 DoublesCindy Reed / Betty Henderson vs Shelley Young / Kelly Dandurand7-5, 7-5
2021-04-24vs KS/Stewart/40&Over3.0WSplit 22
W#1 DoublesMichelle Peck / Shelly Power vs Debbie Kennedy / Nicole Hutton6-4, 6-4
W#1 SinglesAllison Heigele vs Dana Jolley6-1, 6-2
L#2 DoublesJean Boardman / Kate Bycroft vs Mary Martell / Carol Cramer3-6, 5-7
L#3 DoublesCindy Reed / Ellen Kampfe vs Margo Stewart / Cathy Rinehart3-6, 1-6
2021-04-24vs KS/Stewart/40&Over3.0WSplit 22
W#1 DoublesAllison Heigele / Michelle Peck vs Kathy Hof / Debbie Kennedy6-1, 6-0
W#1 SinglesShelly Power vs Nicole Hutton6-3, 4-6, 1-0
L#2 DoublesKate Bycroft / Cindy Reed vs Margo Stewart / Cathy Rinehart2-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesJean Boardman / Kimberly Coxon vs Mary Martell / Carol Cramer3-6, 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 standings5 teams · 3.0 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1KS/Stewart/40&Over3.0W7123923217
2KS/WC2/Smith/40&Over3.0W53191330225
3Pushyk-Wichita-Genesis Rock Rd44191330246
4Obr/Harris - Crestview44181436292
5Foss - Genesis, Rock Road0813163377

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 2.86 estimated across 5 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.

Allison Heigele
usually #1 Singles 60%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published 4
3.15
Dana Huffaker
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.06
Shelley Schroeder
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.85
Shelly Power
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #2 Doubles 17% · published
Betty Henderson
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3
Cindy Reed
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.72
Kim Disberger
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.51
Ellen Kampfe
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
Jean Boardman
usually #3 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
Kate Bycroft
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Michelle Peck
usually #1 Doubles 83%, also #2 Doubles 17% · 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.

Shelley Schroeder + Michelle Peck7260% games+11.2% vs expected
Shelley Schroeder + Dana Huffaker4352% games+10.7% vs expected
Michelle Peck + Dana Huffaker10553% games+4.8% vs expected
Shelly Power + Dana Huffaker6848% games+1.2% vs expected
Cindy Reed + Kim Disberger0527% games−13.1% vs expected
Ellen Kampfe + Jean Boardman4939% gamesnot enough data
Kate Bycroft + Jean Boardman1536% gamesnot enough data
Shelley Schroeder + Shelly Power4254% gamesnot 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.

4
Allison Heigele
46W–49L career · 5 lines in 2021
not enough data
3.5
Dana Huffaker
57W–42L career · 4 lines in 2021
12%88%<1%
3.15
Shelley Schroeder
48W–36L career · 2 lines in 2021
33%67%<1%
3.06
Shelly Power
46W–38L career · 6 lines in 2021
88%12%<1%
2.85
3
Betty Henderson
4W–25L career · 2 lines in 2021
not enough data
3
Cindy Reed
2W–24L career · 3 lines in 2021
not enough data
Kim Disberger
32W–57L career · 2 lines in 2021
5%94%1%
2.72
3
Ellen Kampfe
26W–58L career · 2 lines in 2021
46%54%<1%
2.51
Jean Boardman
13W–61L career · 4 lines in 2021
not enough data
Kate Bycroft
27W–36L career · 2 lines in 2021
not enough data
Michelle Peck
50W–39L career · 6 lines in 2021
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.