Teams

Tabb/55/3.5/NOD/NOCC

2025 NO Adult 55 & Over - Women Day · 3.5 NO (55&O) Women Day

11 players · average NTRP 3.50 / LOUISIANA

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2025-03-12vs Reed/55/3.5/NOD/ASTCLost 03
L#1 DoublesBo Farrell / Mariann Wilson vs Marilyn Foucheaux / Diane Triay2-6, 4-6
L#2 DoublesDebbie Tabb / Henriette Harris vs Lorri Murray / Michelle Osborne2-6, 4-6
L#3 DoublesTracy Mason / Meredith Picou vs Stacie Reed / Barbara Comarda6-3, 1-6, 0-1
2025-02-05vs Rosenthal/55/3.5/NOD/ASTCWon 21
W#1 DoublesBoo Charbonnet / Henriette Harris vs Celia Deininger / Catherine Lyman6-2, 6-4
L#2 DoublesSuzanne Brown / Mariann Wilson vs Sandy Rosenthal / Judy Hendel2-6, 7-5, 0-1
W#3 DoublesBo Farrell / Elizabeth Goodyear vs Charlotte Bracey / Janice Leaumont6-1, 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.

Flight standings for 3.5 NO (55&O) Women Day 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 3.16 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.

3.38
Boo Charbonnet
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.37
Elizabeth Goodyear
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.37
Bo Farrell
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.27
Henriette Harris
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
Bridget Lawrence
published 3.5
Debbie Tabb
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.10
Jill Bellone
published
3.09
Megan Nelson
published
3.05
Meredith Picou
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.94
Tracy Mason
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.90
Mariann Wilson
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · 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.

Henriette Harris + Boo Charbonnet2348% games−1.3% vs expected
Megan Nelson + Boo Charbonnet314 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.

3.5
Boo Charbonnet
17W–11L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%80%19%
3.38
Elizabeth Goodyear
3W–2L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%81%18%
3.37
3.5
Bo Farrell
6W–4L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%82%17%
3.37
Henriette Harris
11W–10L career · 2 lines in 2025
3%92%5%
3.27
3.5
Bridget Lawrence
1W–9L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
3.5
Debbie Tabb
1W–2L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Jill Bellone
18W–17L career · no lines in 2025
24%76%<1%
3.10
Megan Nelson
5W–5L career · no lines in 2025
26%74%<1%
3.09
Meredith Picou
1W–3L career · 1 line in 2025
35%65%<1%
3.05
Tracy Mason
7W–10L career · 1 line in 2025
67%33%<1%
2.94
Mariann Wilson
4W–10L career · 2 lines in 2025
76%24%<1%
2.90

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.