Teams

Platt - Lawn and Tennis

2022 Sandhills Adult 55 & over · 4.0 Senior Women

10 players · average NTRP 3.88 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
W#2 DoublesSandra Chapman-Wilson / Kathy Mason vs Brenda Anderson Newhof / Laurie Summers6-4, 7-6
W#3 DoublesTara Platt / Annie Osterman vs Susan Holmes / Bozena Bator6-2, 7-6
2022-04-11vs Blalock - Lawn and TennisLost 02
L#2 DoublesJennifer Berk / Sandra Chapman-Wilson vs Susan Omell / Maggie Wells4-6, 0-6
L#3 DoublesTara Platt / Annie Osterman vs Elaine van Vliet / Alice Droppers1-6, 1-6
W#1 DoublesTara Platt / Annie Osterman vs Brenda Anderson Newhof / Laurie Summers6-3, 3-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesCathy Middleton / Sandra Chapman-Wilson vs Jane Barton / Susan Holmes6-3, 6-3
W#3 DoublesSandra Chapman-Wilson / Kathy Mason vs Jane Barton / Julie Milton6-4, 7-5
2022-02-21vs Blalock - Lawn and TennisLost 01
L#2 DoublesAnnie Osterman / Tara Platt vs Tammy Batten / Lisa Blalock3-6, 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 4.0 Senior 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 3.60 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.

3.82
Kimberly Fisher
published
3.73
Annie Osterman
usually #2 Doubles 56%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.73
Sandra Chapman-Wilson
usually #3 Doubles 71%, also #2 Doubles 29% · published 4
3.71
3.53
Tara Platt
published
3.09
Carolyn Zahran
published 3.5
Erika Heaney
published
Jennifer Berk
published
Kathy Mason
published
Tammy Bryant
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.

Tara Platt + Annie Osterman9853% games+10.0% vs expected
Jennifer Berk + Tammy Bryant19755% gamesnot enough data
Annie Osterman + Sandra Chapman-Wilson1536% gamesnot enough data
Tara Platt + Jennifer Berk3258% gamesnot enough data
Jennifer Berk + Annie Osterman5065% gamesnot enough data
Erika Heaney + Tammy Bryant3258% 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.

Kimberly Fisher
33W–27L career · no lines in 2022
1%91%9%
3.82
4
Annie Osterman
170W–149L career · 9 lines in 2022
4%94%2%
3.73
4
Sandra Chapman-Wilson
91W–127L career · 7 lines in 2022
4%94%2%
3.73
4
Catherine Christianson
21W–29L career · no lines in 2022
6%93%1%
3.71
Tara Platt
61W–44L career · no lines in 2022
41%59%<1%
3.53
3.5
Carolyn Zahran
10W–18L career · type A · no lines in 2022
24%76%<1%
3.09
Erika Heaney
11W–10L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Jennifer Berk
31W–15L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Kathy Mason
1W–5L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Tammy Bryant
27W–17L 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.