Teams

JDS-JOHNSON

2024 · 2025 MATA USTA Adult 65 & Over - Fall

9 players · average NTRP 2.92 / GEORGIA

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2024-10-28Lost 01
L#3 DoublesPeggy Elliott / Carol Hightower vs Cynthia Conine / Kay Sanders3-6, 5-7
2024-10-21Lost 01
L#2 DoublesCarol Hightower / Dana Johnson vs Sara Mason / Catherine Goff4-6, 3-6
2024-10-07Won 10
W#3 DoublesCarol Hightower / Peggy Elliott vs Cynthia Conine / Lynn Farmer6-4, 6-7, 1-0
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 · 2025 MATA USTA Adult 65 & Over - Fall
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1JDS-JOHNSON5213821176
2RS-CONINE2581328214

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 2.78 estimated across 8 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.

3.03
Sharon Livingston
usually #1 Doubles 55%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
3.00
Hilary Ellwood
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 22% · published 3
2.93
Phyllis Lane
usually #1 Doubles 63%, also #2 Doubles 32% · published
2.92
Ibelise Castro
usually #1 Doubles 42%, also #1 Singles 23% · published 3
2.83
Christine Samet
usually #2 Doubles 46%, also #3 Doubles 39% · published 3
Carol Hightower
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.68
Peggy Elliott
usually #3 Doubles 69%, also #2 Doubles 23% · published
2.54
Barbara Flanagan
usually #3 Doubles 47%, also #2 Doubles 26% · published 3
2.33
Anita C Smith
usually #3 Doubles 38%, also #2 Doubles 38% · published 2.5
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.

Christine Samet + Sharon Livingston19562% games+4.6% vs expected
Phyllis Lane + Ibelise Castro13259% games+2.7% vs expected
Phyllis Lane + Sharon Livingston9555% games−5.8% vs expected
Phyllis Lane + Christine Samet3349% games−13.6% vs expected
Phyllis Lane + Hilary Ellwood3254% gamesnot enough data
Hilary Ellwood + Sharon Livingston4166% gamesnot enough data
Anita C Smith + Sharon Livingston224 matchesnot enough data
Christine Samet + Peggy Elliott213 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.

Sharon Livingston
51W–27L career · 20 lines in 2025
<1%42%58%
3.03
3
Hilary Ellwood
27W–10L career · 9 lines in 2025
<1%51%49%
3.00
Phyllis Lane
48W–23L career · 19 lines in 2025
<1%71%28%
2.93
3
Ibelise Castro
38W–22L career · 25 lines in 2025
<1%73%27%
2.92
3
Christine Samet
41W–22L career · 13 lines in 2025
1%89%10%
2.83
3
Carol Hightower
1W–2L career · 3 lines in 2025
not enough data
Peggy Elliott
27W–23L career · 13 lines in 2025
8%91%1%
2.68
3
Barbara Flanagan
13W–24L career · 19 lines in 2025
37%63%<1%
2.54
2.5
Anita C Smith
13W–13L career · 8 lines in 2025
0%91%9%
2.33

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.