Teams

Wyoming/Peck/55&Over8.0W

2022 USTA 55 & OVER · 8.0 Women - 55 & OVER

8 players · average NTRP 4.00 / WYOMING

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
2022-07-24vs Laramie Team TwoWon 30
W#1 DoublesNancy Peck / Alyson Hagy vs Patricia Hansen / Susan Sherman6-2, 6-1
W#2 DoublesEllen Laubhan / Cheryl Johnson vs Rene Williams / Cathy Gorbett6-0, 6-2
W#3 DoublesMegan Hayes / Sharon Buccino vs Debra Olson / Ginger Paige6-3, 6-2
2022-07-23vs Laramie Team TwoWon 30
W#1 DoublesAlyson Hagy / Carolayne Henry vs Vicky Kmetz / Helen Dungan6-2, 3-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesEllen Laubhan / Cheryl Johnson vs Rene Williams / Cathy Gorbett6-4, 6-2
W#3 DoublesJanet Stanforth-Nachtigal / Tracy Dooley vs Debra Olson / Ginger Paige6-3, 6-2
2022-07-23vs Laramie Team TwoWon 30
W#1 DoublesSharon Buccino / Nancy Peck vs Rene Williams / Patricia Hansen6-0, 6-1
W#2 DoublesMegan Hayes / Carolayne Henry vs Vicky Kmetz / Helen Dungan6-2, 3-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesJanet Stanforth-Nachtigal / Tracy Dooley vs Debra Olson / Ginger Paige6-3, 7-5
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 · 8.0 Women - 55 & OVER
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Wyoming/Peck/55&Over8.0W3090246
2Laramie Team Two030918105

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 3.65 estimated across 2 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.

Alyson Hagy
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.68
Carolayne Henry
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.61
Ellen Laubhan
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
Janet Stanforth-Nachtigal
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Megan Hayes
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
Nancy Peck
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Sharon Buccino
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
Tracy Dooley
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.

Nancy Peck + Ellen Laubhan11161% games+8.8% vs expected
Megan Hayes + Ellen Laubhan8156% games+0.4% vs expected
Sharon Buccino + Ellen Laubhan4347% gamesnot enough data
Sharon Buccino + Alyson Hagy1649% gamesnot enough data
Alyson Hagy + Janet Stanforth-Nachtigal2448% gamesnot enough data
Tracy Dooley + Janet Stanforth-Nachtigal404 matchesnot enough data
Nancy Peck + Alyson Hagy213 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.

4
Alyson Hagy
13W–25L career · 2 lines in 2022
not enough data
4
Carolayne Henry
122W–137L career · 2 lines in 2022
8%91%1%
3.68
4
Ellen Laubhan
128W–94L career · 2 lines in 2022
20%80%<1%
3.61
Janet Stanforth-Nachtigal
13W–16L career · 2 lines in 2022
not enough data
Megan Hayes
14W–3L career · 2 lines in 2022
not enough data
Nancy Peck
22W–9L career · 2 lines in 2022
not enough data
Sharon Buccino
16W–17L career · 2 lines in 2022
not enough data
Tracy Dooley
6W–6L career · no lines in 2022
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.