Teams

A65 6.0W GR Croskey

2025 NEOTA Adult 65 & Over Summer · NEOTA A65&O 6.0 Women

11 players · average NTRP 3.00 / NORTHEASTERN OHIO

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 →
Schedule2 played
2025-07-09vs NEO/Bissell/A65&Over6.0WLost 12
L#1 DoublesBarbara Plum / Laura Simon vs Sharon Kimmell / Susan Lowery-O'Connell3-6, 4-6
W#2 DoublesStephanie Allen / Janice Hall Moore vs Patricia Bissell / Kim Marschik6-2, 6-4
L#3 DoublesJudy Grisez / Patricia Golkiewicz vs Deb Rutzky / Doris Tomko0-6, 0-6
2025-05-28vs NEO/Bissell/A65&Over6.0WLost 12
W#1 DoublesPatricia Croskey / Laura Simon vs Susan Busch / Sandra Hunsicker6-4, 6-3
L#2 DoublesLinda Hultz / Sue Labut vs Deb Rutzky / Sharon Kimmell1-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesPatricia Golkiewicz / Sue van Etten vs Susan Lowery-O'Connell / Jodie Grasgreen DeLamatre1-6, 1-6
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 NEOTA A65&O 6.0 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 2.78 estimated across 1 rated player. 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.

2.78
Barbara Plum
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
Janice Hall Moore
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Judy Grisez
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Laura Simon
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Linda Hultz
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Patricia Croskey
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Patricia Golkiewicz
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Rebecca Jefferies
published
Sue Labut
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Sue van Etten
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Suzanna Racine
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.

Rebecca Jefferies + Barbara Plum15856% gamesnot enough data
Laura Simon + Patricia Croskey11953% gamesnot enough data
Sue Labut + Patricia Croskey7453% gamesnot enough data
Rebecca Jefferies + Patricia Croskey4255% gamesnot enough data
Janice Hall Moore + Suzanna Racine4252% gamesnot enough data
Sue Labut + Sue van Etten1446% gamesnot enough data
Laura Simon + Rebecca Jefferies3258% gamesnot enough data
Sue van Etten + Linda Hultz3255% gamesnot 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
Barbara Plum
45W–55L career · 1 line in 2025
1%94%5%
2.78
Janice Hall Moore
27W–53L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Judy Grisez
15W–27L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Laura Simon
33W–29L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Linda Hultz
12W–18L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Patricia Croskey
33W–40L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Patricia Golkiewicz
20W–29L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Rebecca Jefferies
44W–38L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Sue Labut
20W–34L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Sue van Etten
13W–36L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Suzanna Racine
18W–28L 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.