Teams

Plant City 65+ Dames - P. Smith

2025 Hillsborough Adult 65 & Over · 6.0 Adult 65 & Over - Women

8 players · average NTRP 2.75 / REGION_3

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2025-03-14vs Super Sassy Sixties - E. VickersLost 01
L#2 DoublesSusan Rind / Susan Sommerfield vs Carmen Heggen / Anne Stafford1-6, 2-6
2025-02-28vs Hills/Huntington/65&Over6.0WLost 01
L#3 DoublesJulianna Holbrook / Susan Rind vs Kathleen Gafarian / Sharon Lucas0-6, 6-4, 0-1
2025-02-21vs Super Sassy Sixties - E. VickersLost 01
L#2 DoublesSheila Brown / Julianna Holbrook vs Carmen Heggen / Anne Stafford2-6, 3-6
2025-02-07vs Hills/Huntington/65&Over6.0WSplit 11
W#1 DoublesCatherine Mueller / Susan Sommerfield vs Sharon Lucas / Lynn Malarz4-6, 6-3, 1-0
L#2 DoublesJulianna Holbrook / Patricia Smith vs Barbara Dolan / Margaret McGillivray2-6, 2-6
2025-01-31vs Super Sassy Sixties - E. VickersLost 01
L#3 DoublesJulianna Holbrook / Cynthia Scaletta vs Hannah Gabora / Cindy Sparks1-6, 4-6
2025-01-17vs Hills/Huntington/65&Over6.0WLost 02
L#2 DoublesSusan Rind / Julianna Holbrook vs Barbara Dolan / Margaret McGillivray2-6, 5-7
L#3 DoublesPatricia Smith / Cynthia Scaletta vs Renee Hovden / Sharon Woodruff2-6, 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 6.0 Adult 65 & Over - 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 2.50 estimated across 8 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.

2.80
2.75
Leisa Jordan
published
2.59
Susan Sommerfield
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
2.55
Patricia Smith
published
2.54
Sheila Brown
published
2.39
Julianna Holbrook
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #3 Doubles 40% · published
2.38
Susan Rind
published
2.01
Cynthia Scaletta
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
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.

Julianna Holbrook + Cynthia Scaletta52134% gamesnot enough data
Julianna Holbrook + Susan Rind134 matchesnot enough data
Patricia Smith + Susan Rind033 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
Catherine Mueller
26W–27L career · no lines in 2025
2%91%8%
2.80
Leisa Jordan
5W–9L career · no lines in 2025
4%93%4%
2.75
Susan Sommerfield
58W–71L career · 2 lines in 2025
26%74%<1%
2.59
Patricia Smith
6W–10L career · no lines in 2025
36%64%<1%
2.55
Sheila Brown
1W–8L career · no lines in 2025
37%63%<1%
2.54
Julianna Holbrook
60W–151L career · 5 lines in 2025
78%22%<1%
2.39
Susan Rind
1W–13L career · no lines in 2025
81%19%<1%
2.38
2.5
Cynthia Scaletta
46W–85L career · 2 lines in 2025
0%>99%<1%
2.01

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.