Teams

WOB:Woburn:MacDonald/Holmes

2023 EMA Adult 55 & Over Women · 9.0 Women

14 players · average NTRP 4.50 / EASTERN MASSACHUSETTS

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 →
Schedule7 played
2023-09-12vs LFNT:Natick:Corey/AllenLost 02
L#1 DoublesMary MacDonald / Naomi Biswas vs Susan Corey / Aleta Cebere5-7, 1-6
L#2 DoublesSandra Palmer / Lori Holmes vs Adele Pascale / Sally Kellogg3-6, 0-6
2023-07-19vs LFNT:Natick:Corey/AllenLost 12
L#1 DoublesNancy Bulkley / Kathleen Poulin vs Aleta Cebere / Barbara Hickey1-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesSandra Palmer / Debra Shapiro vs Sandra Allen / Adele Pascale3-6, 2-6
W#3 DoublesMary MacDonald / Donna Shea vs Laura Carroll / Sally Kellogg6-3, 3-6, 1-0
2023-07-12vs BRTC:Bass River:SweetLost 12
L#1 DoublesKathleen Poulin / Donna Shea vs Deborah Evans / Alessandra Herman4-6, 4-6
L#2 DoublesSandra Palmer / Nancy Bulkley vs Anne Kirby / Nancy Nevils1-6, 6-2, 0-1
W#3 DoublesDebra Shapiro / Maeve McNally vs Jeanne Muzio / Nancy Irving6-7, 4-3, 1-0
2023-06-14vs LFNT:Natick:Corey/AllenLost 03
L#1 DoublesSandra Palmer / Ann Wolf vs Aleta Cebere / Susan Corey6-3, 3-6, 0-1
L#2 DoublesNaomi Biswas / Mary MacDonald vs Sandra Allen / Laura Carroll7-6, 4-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesLori Holmes / Nancy Bulkley vs Sally Kellogg / Sarah Schoettle5-7, 4-6
2023-05-31vs BRTC:Bass River:SweetLost 12
L#1 DoublesKathleen Poulin / Nancy Bulkley vs Nancy Nevils / Lynne Salah2-6, 4-6
L#2 DoublesHilary Bugbee / Donna Shea vs Nancy Irving / Anne Kirby3-6, 3-6
W#3 DoublesMaeve McNally / Karen Resnic vs Pamela Sweet / Leslie Hoff6-4, 5-7, 1-0
2023-05-24vs LFNT:Natick:Corey/AllenLost 12
L#1 DoublesNaomi Biswas / Ann Wolf vs Aleta Cebere / Susan Corey4-6, 3-6
W#2 DoublesMaeve McNally / Sandra Palmer vs Jennifer Radden / Sandra Allen6-1, 2-6, 1-0
L#3 DoublesKaren Schramm / Karen Resnic vs Laura Carroll / Sarah Schoettle3-6, 6-3, 0-1
2023-05-10vs BRTC:Bass River:SweetWon 30
W#1 DoublesNaomi Biswas / Kathleen Poulin vs Pamela Sweet / Debora Kelly7-5, 3-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesHilary Bugbee / Sandra Palmer vs Deborah Evans / Leslie Hoff6-3, 6-3
W#3 DoublesKaren Resnic / Debra Shapiro vs Lynne Salah / Jeanne Muzio6-3, 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 standings3 teams · 9.0 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1BRTC:Bass River:Sweet0681022165
2LFNT:Natick:Corey/Allen0714718168
3WOB:Woburn:MacDonald/Holmes0771433226

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 3.84 estimated across 6 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.

Ann Wolf
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
3.99
Nancy Bulkley
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
3.97
Debra Shapiro
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4.5
3.94
Karen Schramm
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.90
Hilary Bugbee
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.65
Lori Holmes
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
3.56
Donna Shea
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
Emily Rhinelander
published
Karen Resnic
published
Kathleen Poulin
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Maeve McNally
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
Mary MacDonald
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
Naomi Biswas
usually #2 Doubles 44%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
Sandra Palmer
usually #2 Doubles 78%, also #1 Doubles 22% · 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.

Mary MacDonald + Naomi Biswas1638% gamesnot enough data
Mary MacDonald + Lori Holmes224 matchesnot enough data
Donna Shea + Hilary Bugbee134 matchesnot enough data
Kathleen Poulin + Hilary Bugbee123 matchesnot enough data
Naomi Biswas + Sandra Palmer303 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.

4.5
Ann Wolf
24W–15L career · 2 lines in 2023
not enough data
Nancy Bulkley
25W–37L career · 4 lines in 2023
53%47%<1%
3.99
4.5
Debra Shapiro
5W–17L career · 3 lines in 2023
58%42%<1%
3.97
Karen Schramm
17W–14L career · 1 line in 2023
<1%66%34%
3.94
Hilary Bugbee
33W–43L career · 2 lines in 2023
<1%77%23%
3.90
Lori Holmes
41W–35L career · 2 lines in 2023
99%1%<1%
3.65
Donna Shea
57W–82L career · 6 lines in 2023
33%67%<1%
3.56
Emily Rhinelander
5W–10L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Karen Resnic
6W–6L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Kathleen Poulin
7W–12L career · 4 lines in 2023
not enough data
Maeve McNally
7W–18L career · 3 lines in 2023
not enough data
Mary MacDonald
10W–15L career · 3 lines in 2023
not enough data
Naomi Biswas
40W–26L career · 9 lines in 2023
not enough data
Sandra Palmer
21W–30L career · 9 lines in 2023
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.