Teams

Bigando/Mueret

2025 Neb. Adult 65&Over · 7.0 Adult Women

9 players · average NTRP 3.40 / NEBRASKA

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 →
Schedule3 played
2025-05-23vs NE/Berlin-Paap/65&Over7.0WLost 03
L#1 DoublesCindy Bluml / Karen Crook vs Michelle Berlin / Jacquie Dierks4-6, 5-7
L#2 DoublesSally Johnson / Debra Bigando vs Cathie Turner / Mary Longo3-6, 7-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesAnne Conlon / Cheryl Schmidt vs Virginia Paap / Mary Nordstrand7-6, 5-7, 0-1
2025-05-16vs NE/Berlin-Paap/65&Over7.0WLost 12
W#1 DoublesCheryl Schmidt / Anne Conlon vs Barbara Spomer / Yasuko Wakuzawa6-2, 6-2
L#2 DoublesCindy Bluml / Diane Byrnes vs Virginia Paap / Michelle Berlin1-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesNancy Watson / Debra Bigando vs Mary Nordstrand / Ann Galley1-6, 4-6
2025-05-14vs NE/Berlin-Paap/65&Over7.0WLost 03
L#1 DoublesDiane Byrnes / Cindy Bluml vs Cathie Turner / Yasuko Wakuzawa6-3, 2-6, 0-1
L#2 DoublesAnne Conlon / Nancy Watson vs Michelle Berlin / Barbara Spomer6-2, 1-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesKaren Crook / Cheryl Schmidt vs Charlene Liesveld / Ann Galley2-6, 5-7
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 standings2 teams · 7.0 Adult Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1NE/Berlin-Paap/65&Over7.0W3081674
2Bigando/Mueret031816100

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 3.08 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.

3.36
Cindy Bluml
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published 3.5
Diane Byrnes
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.22
Margaret Scofield
published
3.02
Cheryl Schmidt
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
2.92
Anne Conlon
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
2.88
Debra Bigando
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3
Karen Crook
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
Nancy Watson
published
Sally Johnson
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.

Anne Conlon + Cheryl Schmidt3646% games+1.4% vs expected
Nancy Watson + Anne Conlon9066% gamesnot enough data
Diane Byrnes + Anne Conlon5160% gamesnot enough data
Karen Crook + Diane Byrnes123 matchesnot enough data
Karen Crook + Cindy Bluml123 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.

3.5
Cindy Bluml
117W–100L career · 5 lines in 2025
1%84%16%
3.36
3.5
Diane Byrnes
23W–28L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Margaret Scofield
10W–9L career · no lines in 2025
6%92%2%
3.22
3.5
Cheryl Schmidt
33W–74L career · 3 lines in 2025
43%57%<1%
3.02
3.5
Anne Conlon
54W–59L career · 3 lines in 2025
72%28%<1%
2.92
3
Debra Bigando
73W–42L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%80%19%
2.88
Karen Crook
19W–23L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Nancy Watson
16W–8L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Sally Johnson
0W–4L 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.