Teams

Patterson/40's/Trilevel/MAC

2025 Monroe Tri Level 40 & Over - Women · 4.5,4.0,3.5 Monroe (40&O) Women

7 players · average NTRP 3.67 / LOUISIANA

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2025-07-30vs McGee/40's/Trilevel/ForLost 03
L#1 DoublesKathryn Waters / Debbie Garner vs Rebekah Anzalone / Donna McGee2-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesBrenda Wilson / Lauren Bailey vs Tracie Coons / Lenette Romero4-6, 5-7
L#3 DoublesDianne Graham / Virginia Eddleman vs Janis Battaglia / Wesley Johnson2-6, 0-6
2025-07-29vs McGee/40's/Trilevel/ForLost 03
L#1 DoublesLauren Bailey / Kathryn Waters vs Rebekah Anzalone / Donna McGee1-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesDebbie Garner / Brenda Wilson vs Tracie Coons / Catherine Hardy1-6, 2-6
L#3 DoublesVirginia Eddleman / Dianne Graham vs Wesley Johnson / Julie Johnson1-6, 4-6
2025-07-19vs McGee/40's/Trilevel/ForLost 03
L#1 DoublesDebbie Garner / Kathryn Waters vs Donna McGee / Lucille Bourgeois2-6, 4-6
L#2 DoublesLauren Bailey / Brenda Wilson vs Beth McNeil / Lenette Romero2-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesVirginia Eddleman / Dianne Graham vs Janis Battaglia / Julie Johnson2-6, 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 4.5,4.0,3.5 Monroe (40&O) 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 3.36 estimated across 5 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.

3.71
Debbie Garner
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.53
Brenda Wilson
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.32
Dianne Graham
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.16
Virginia Eddleman
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.09
Rachel Patterson
published
Kathryn Waters
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Lauren Bailey
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · 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.

Rachel Patterson + Brenda Wilson4263% games+6.9% vs expected
Virginia Eddleman + Dianne Graham3544% games−2.1% vs expected
Kathryn Waters + Debbie Garner033 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
Debbie Garner
13W–6L career · 3 lines in 2025
6%92%2%
3.71
3.5
Brenda Wilson
5W–13L career · type A · 3 lines in 2025
<1%40%60%
3.53
3.5
Dianne Graham
12W–14L career · 3 lines in 2025
1%89%10%
3.32
Virginia Eddleman
11W–9L career · 3 lines in 2025
12%87%1%
3.16
Rachel Patterson
9W–8L career · no lines in 2025
26%74%<1%
3.09
Kathryn Waters
5W–7L career · 3 lines in 2025
not enough data
Lauren Bailey
3W–3L career · 3 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.