Teams

Marion/Greene/65&Over6.0W

2025 Marion Adult 65 & Over · 6.0 Adult Women 65 & Over

13 players · average NTRP 3.00 / REGION_2

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2025-02-16vs FK Mosteller 65+ 6.0Won 20
W#1 DoublesDeborah Franklin / Mary Stevens vs Wanda Cross / Patricia Lamell6-3, 6-2
W#2 DoublesJanet Greene / Debby McCoy vs Priscilla Stanley / Donna Schafer6-0, 6-0
2025-02-02vs FK Mosteller 65+ 6.0Won 30
W#1 DoublesJoan Matlock / Jody Nielsen vs Wanda Cross / Linda Sheehan6-3, 6-3
W#2 DoublesJanet Snider / Mary Stevens vs Emily Speaker / Judith Lavendar6-0, 6-1
W#3 DoublesJanet Greene / Debby McCoy vs Melinda Hartline / Olga Mosteller6-1, 6-1
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 6.0 Adult Women 65 & Over 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 2.75 estimated across 7 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.

3.07
Janet Greene
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
2.91
Debby McCoy
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3
2.76
Margie McLellan
published
Cindy Voigt
published 3
Deborah Franklin
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.74
Laura Roberson
published
2.65
Donna Davis
published 3
2.60
Joan Matlock
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.56
CARMEL CONNOR
published 3
Janet Snider
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Jody Nielsen
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Mary Stevens
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
Trish Mosby
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.

Joan Matlock + Debby McCoy2344% gamesnot enough data
Janet Greene + Debby McCoy404 matchesnot enough data
Mary Stevens + CARMEL CONNOR123 matchesnot enough data
Joan Matlock + CARMEL CONNOR213 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.

Janet Greene
26W–5L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%30%70%
3.07
3
Debby McCoy
12W–4L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%76%24%
2.91
Margie McLellan
12W–11L career · no lines in 2025
2%95%3%
2.76
3
Cindy Voigt
0W–2L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
3
Deborah Franklin
1W–2L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Laura Roberson
25W–9L career · no lines in 2025
3%95%2%
2.74
3
Donna Davis
6W–10L career · no lines in 2025
13%87%<1%
2.65
Joan Matlock
27W–50L career · 1 line in 2025
22%78%<1%
2.60
3
CARMEL CONNOR
12W–11L career · no lines in 2025
31%69%<1%
2.56
Janet Snider
7W–2L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Jody Nielsen
1W–0L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Mary Stevens
5W–6L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Trish Mosby
2W–11L career · no 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.