Teams

Tennis Valdosta/Tina Folsom

2026 Valdosta Southern Combo 40 & Over - · Women 6.5

8 players · average NTRP 3.17 / GEORGIA

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2026-08-30vs Tennis Valdosta/Julee LincolnWon 21
W#1 DoublesTina Folsom / Alyssa Pate vs Leigh Ann Hogan / Meredith Adams8-6
L#2 DoublesDana Boruff / Tara Purvis vs Meghan Womack / Becky Smith2-8
W#3 DoublesGwenn Haden / Andrea Schruijer vs Stephanie Blevins / Jennie Alvarez8-6
2026-08-23vs Tennis Valdosta/Julee LincolnWon 21
W#1 DoublesTina Folsom / Alyssa Pate vs Sarah Soshnik / Meghan Womack9-7
W#2 DoublesGwenn Haden / Andrea Schruijer vs Stephanie Blevins / Jennie Alvarez8-6
L#3 DoublesSarah Kolisz / Michelle Parkerson vs Julee Lincoln / Meredith Adams5-8
2026-08-16vs Tennis Valdosta/Julee LincolnLost 03
L#1 DoublesTina Folsom / Alyssa Pate vs Sarah Soshnik / Jennie Alvarez6-8
L#2 DoublesDana Boruff / Tara Purvis vs Becky Smith / Meghan Womack4-8
L#3 DoublesSarah Kolisz / Michelle Parkerson vs Julee Lincoln / Meredith Adams2-8
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 · Women 6.5
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Tennis Valdosta/Julee Lincoln000000
2Tennis Valdosta/Tina Folsom000000

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 3.16 estimated across 7 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
Dana Boruff
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.38
Tina Folsom
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.37
Sarah Kolisz
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.29
Gwenn Haden
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
2.94
Alyssa Pate
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.92
Tara Purvis
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.78
Andrea Schruijer
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3
Michelle Parkerson
usually #3 Doubles 100% · 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.

Dana Boruff + Tara Purvis123 matchesnot enough data
Dana Boruff + Tina Folsom303 matchesnot enough data
Alyssa Pate + Tina Folsom213 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
Dana Boruff
9W–2L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%59%41%
3.47
Tina Folsom
12W–2L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%81%19%
3.38
Sarah Kolisz
8W–5L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%83%17%
3.37
Gwenn Haden
7W–1L career · 2 lines in 2026
2%92%6%
3.29
3
Alyssa Pate
2W–3L career · type S · 3 lines in 2026
<1%67%33%
2.94
Tara Purvis
2W–6L career · 2 lines in 2026
72%28%<1%
2.92
3
Andrea Schruijer
2W–6L career · type S · 2 lines in 2026
2%92%6%
2.78
Michelle Parkerson
3W–2L career · 2 lines in 2026
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.