← Teams

MAC-Bounds/Popma

2024 Adult 40 & Over · 3.5 Women

10 players · average NTRP 3.5 · USTA/PACIFIC NW / NORTHERN OREGON

View scouting list →
Scouting

Roster averages 3.24 estimated across 9 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.

3.47
Michelle Posey
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.46
Christy MacColl
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 50% · published 3.5
3.39
Julie Kim
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.39
Desiree Bliss
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.24
Alexandra Lee
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.23
Jill Eilers
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.16
Caroline Popma
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.01
Kathleen Cooney
usually #1 Doubles 43%, also #2 Doubles 29% · published 3.5
2.84
Wendy Hill
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
—
Sharr Stark
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
Results8 ties
2024-06-22Split 1–1
W#2 DoublesAlexandra Lee / Desiree Bliss vs Suzanne Friedman / Dayna Jahnke-Corwin6-0, 6-1
L#3 DoublesWendy Hill / April Paris vs Stephany Mo / Margaret Convery2-6, 6-1, 1-0
2024-06-14Won 3–0
W#1 SinglesChristy MacColl vs Kim Hevia6-1, 6-1
W#2 DoublesMichelle Posey / Julia Hall vs Janice Ackley / Catherine Greenblatt6-1, 6-0
W#3 DoublesSharr Stark / Kathleen Cooney vs Nozomi Bray / Maryke Schmidt6-2, 0-6, 1-0
2024-05-18Lost 0–2
L#2 DoublesJill Eilers / April Paris vs Christine Taylor / Karen Groenweghe4-6, 7-5, 1-0
L#3 DoublesChristy MacColl / Sharr Stark vs Marlene Enos / Denise Angel3-6, 6-2, 1-0
2024-05-11Lost 1–2
L#1 DoublesCaroline Popma / Jen Lawrence vs Trina Newcomb / Angie Urrutia6-4, 6-1
W#2 DoublesJulie Kim / Desiree Bliss vs Andrea Vicino / Sheila McCarroll6-2, 7-6
L#3 DoublesSharr Stark / Kathleen Cooney vs Alison Marr / Lilian Ezaki de Araujo7-5, 6-3
2024-05-04Split 1–1
L#1 DoublesCaroline Popma / Michelle Posey vs Nozomi Bray / Michele Snyder7-5, 0-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesJulia Hall / Jill Eilers vs Itsuko Day / Chikako Hokanson6-2, 6-4
2024-04-27Won 3–0
W#1 DoublesJulie Kim / Michelle Posey vs Jennifer Potter / Terry Mettler7-6, 6-1
W#2 DoublesJen Lawrence / Jill Eilers vs Barbara Dusicka / Lauren Mang6-4, 6-3
W#3 DoublesWendy Hill / April Paris vs Michelle Ruby / Margaret Convery7-6, 4-6, 1-0
2024-04-20Split 1–1
W#1 DoublesCaroline Popma / Michelle Posey vs Teresa Darling / Puntrigar Suriyaseang6-4, 6-1
L#3 DoublesJulie Kim / Alexandra Lee vs Julie Gorecki / Kyra John6-1, 7-5
2024-04-13Won 2–1
W#1 DoublesMichelle Posey / Susan Torch vs Kiersten Lake / Chris van Leeuwen6-7, 6-4, 1-0
L#2 DoublesCaroline Popma / Marcy Bernhardt vs Andrea Hobi / Robin Welter6-2, 6-1
W#3 DoublesAlexandra Lee / Jill Eilers vs Paula Watt / Patricia Eargle6-2, 6-2
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.
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.

4
Michelle Posey
76W–43L career
45%55%0%
3.47
3.5
Christy MacColl
32W–13L career
0%85%15%
3.46
4
Julie Kim
49W–37L career · type A
61%39%0%
3.39
3.5
Desiree Bliss
65W–35L career
0%95%5%
3.39
3.5
Alexandra Lee
32W–13L career
2%98%1%
3.24
3.5
Jill Eilers
34W–18L career
2%97%0%
3.23
3.5
Caroline Popma
45W–30L career
11%89%0%
3.16
3.5
Kathleen Cooney
47W–71L career
31%69%0%
3.01
3
Wendy Hill
34W–48L career
0%96%3%
2.84
3
Sharr Stark
10W–28L career
not enough data
—

Three percentages are the year-end projection — chance of moving down, staying, moving up — and the number on the right is our estimated dynamic rating, which USTA never publishes. 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.