Teams

KY/LOU/ST.CLAIR/BEAN

2025 USTA LEAGUE 55 & Over ADULT LOUISVILLE · 4.0 Women

14 players · average NTRP 4.00 / KENTUCKY

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 →
Schedule1 played
2025-03-30vs KY/LOU/BRAY/JORDANLost 03
L#1 DoublesDarla Radcliff / Margaret Hoffman vs Jennifer Bray / Leslie Erena4-6, 6-7
L#2 DoublesEleanor Lyons / Rhonda Wasinger vs Amy Dishman / Linda Ozier4-6, 2-6
L#3 DoublesJane St Clair / Sandra Heeke vs Brenda Stofer / Heather Kushner1-6, 2-6
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 standings for 4.0 Women 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 3.56 estimated across 11 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.

3.84
Margaret Hoffman
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.72
Eleanor Lyons
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.72
Cheryl Mitchell
published 4
3.59
Karen Crush
published
3.57
Miriam Long
published
3.57
Jane St Clair
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.56
Janet Brumley
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
3.53
Darla Radcliff
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.49
Sarah McDade
published
3.45
Rhonda Wasinger
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.14
Janie Bean
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
Nancy Donohue
published
Sandra Heeke
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Tami Goodbub
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.

Jane St Clair + Janie Bean4547% games−7.8% vs expected
Margaret Hoffman + Miriam Long303 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.

Margaret Hoffman
6W–1L career · 1 line in 2025
1%87%12%
3.84
Eleanor Lyons
11W–7L career · 1 line in 2025
6%92%2%
3.72
4
Cheryl Mitchell
8W–9L career · no lines in 2025
6%92%2%
3.72
Karen Crush
4W–2L career · no lines in 2025
25%75%<1%
3.59
Miriam Long
6W–2L career · no lines in 2025
31%69%<1%
3.57
Jane St Clair
19W–20L career · 1 line in 2025
31%69%<1%
3.57
Janet Brumley
12W–15L career · 2 lines in 2025
32%68%<1%
3.56
4
Darla Radcliff
8W–7L career · 1 line in 2025
42%58%<1%
3.53
Sarah McDade
6W–16L career · no lines in 2025
53%47%<1%
3.49
Rhonda Wasinger
2W–5L career · 1 line in 2025
64%36%<1%
3.45
Janie Bean
17W–20L career · 4 lines in 2025
16%83%<1%
3.14
Nancy Donohue
1W–0L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Sandra Heeke
0W–3L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Tami Goodbub
1W–1L 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.