Oak Creek/Jackson-Trousil W4.0F
2026 DALLAS TENNIS 40 & Over ADULT W Friday · W4.0F
17 players · average NTRP 3.90 / TEXAS
No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.
Schedule9 played
i
Flight standings20 teams · W4.0F
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1Samuell Grand/Musick-Thornton W4.0F | 8 | 1 | 33 | 321 |
| 2DAC/Perez W4.0F | 8 | 1 | 38 | 359 |
| 3Samuell Grand/Roos-Oliver W4.0F | 8 | 1 | 39 | 339 |
| 4Samuell Grand/McGill W4.0F | 7 | 2 | 40 | 383 |
| 5Wagon Wheel/Coffindaffer W4.0F | 6 | 3 | 37 | 335 |
| 6Greenhill/Nevelow-Ewing W4.0F | 6 | 3 | 45 | 407 |
| 7Kiest/Albus W4.0F | 6 | 3 | 46 | 341 |
| 8High Point/Soldan-Craft W4.0F | 5 | 4 | 43 | 364 |
| 9SMU/Park-Crow W4.0F | 4 | 5 | 49 | 398 |
| 10Huffhines/James-Huffman W4.0F | 4 | 5 | 53 | 440 |
| 11The Lakes/Buckalew-Criswell W4.0F | 4 | 5 | 57 | 444 |
| 12The Nelson/Wood W4.0F | 4 | 5 | 59 | 439 |
| 13Stonebriar/Woodson W4.0F | 4 | 5 | 60 | 455 |
| 14Oak Creek/Jackson-Trousil W4.0F | 3 | 6 | 50 | 384 |
| 15McKinney/Pike-Cady W4.0F | 3 | 6 | 55 | 441 |
| 16Canyon Creek/Kramer-Romness W4.0F | 3 | 6 | 55 | 429 |
| 17Spring Park/Bradley W4.0F | 3 | 6 | 67 | 473 |
| 18Royal Oaks/Munir W4.0F | 2 | 7 | 61 | 461 |
| 19Chandlers Landing/Owenby W4.0F | 2 | 7 | 66 | 467 |
| 20NTRC/Weber W4.0F | 0 | 9 | 76 | 518 |
Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.
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 3.61 estimated across 16 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.
Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.
| Libby Hartter + Anne Dragisic | 4–5 | 52% games | +13.7% vs expected |
| Anne Dragisic + Elisabeth Reeves | 2–3 | 57% games | +0.6% vs expected |
| Donna Heffernan + Deborah Becker | 4–2 | 60% games | +0.1% vs expected |
| Jackie Zarate + Lynda Butcher | 22–17 | 53% games | −1.1% vs expected |
| Jackie Zarate + Anne Dragisic | 5–2 | 58% games | not enough data |
| Anne Dragisic + Jane Jackson | 1–5 | 37% games | not enough data |
| Joanna Jackson + Jane Jackson | 2–2 | 4 matches | not enough data |
| Jane Jackson + Shelley Trousil | 2–2 | 4 matches | not enough data |
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.
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.