Teams

Queen City Orange

2026 OH OV SUMMER Career A55&O W Cincinnati · 2026 Summer Career A 55&O 8.0W Cincinnati

16 players · average NTRP 4.00 / OHIO VALLEY

No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2026-07-23vs Camargo GoldWon 10
W#1 DoublesJeanne Miller / Susan Santos vs Linda Denecke / Dara Hudson6-1, 6-3
2026-07-09vs Queen City GreenWon 20
W#1 DoublesDonna Griffor / Terri Schantz vs Amy Sattler / Jennifer Kapszukiewicz6-4, 6-4
W#3 DoublesBonnie Lang / Lauren Keith vs Tere West-Arroyo / Dwan Foster6-1, 6-2
2026-06-25vs Camargo GoldWon 10
W#3 DoublesSharon Barns / Phyllis Mendoza vs Dara Hudson / Susan Kraemer6-1, 6-3
2026-06-11vs Queen City GreenLost 01
L#1 DoublesMerri Beth Hebeler / Lauren Keith vs Tracy Tschida / Jennifer Nye6-1, 4-6, 0-1
2026-06-04vs Camargo GoldWon 10
W#2 DoublesBethe Orlando / Susan Santos vs Stephanie Kennebeck / Susan Tracy6-1, 6-3
2026-05-21vs Queen City GreenWon 20
W#1 DoublesSharon Barns / Terri Schantz vs Tracy Tschida / Jennifer Nye6-2, 4-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesFelicia Bourbon / Phyllis Mendoza vs Amy Sattler / Sharon Palatchi6-2, 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.

Flight standings for 2026 Summer Career A 55&O 8.0W Cincinnati 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 3.76 estimated across 13 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.

3.96
Phyllis Mendoza
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
3.94
Sharon Barns
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
3.83
Terri Schantz
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.81
Lynda Baumann
usually #1 Doubles 63%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
3.81
Susan Santos
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.79
Bonnie Lang
usually #2 Doubles 33%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.77
Donna Griffor
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 17% · published 4
3.76
Lauren Keith
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
Carol Johnson
published 4
3.74
Janet Scruby
usually #2 Doubles 71%, also #1 Doubles 14% · published
3.71
Bethe Orlando
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.62
Sandra Stephens
usually #3 Doubles 40%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published
3.60
Felicia Bourbon
usually #2 Doubles 44%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.50
Merri Beth Hebeler
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
Jeanne Miller
published
Laurel Fritzhand
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 33% · 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.

Janet Scruby + Felicia Bourbon6262% games+9.0% vs expected
Felicia Bourbon + Merri Beth Hebeler18854% games+3.7% vs expected
Sandra Stephens + Felicia Bourbon4646% games−3.0% vs expected
Sandra Stephens + Merri Beth Hebeler4253% games−3.1% vs expected
Sandra Stephens + Janet Scruby71149% games−8.9% vs expected
Carol Johnson + Donna Griffor8259% gamesnot enough data
Sandra Stephens + Carol Johnson5253% gamesnot enough data
Jeanne Miller + Merri Beth Hebeler3343% 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.

Phyllis Mendoza
45W–21L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%62%38%
3.96
Sharon Barns
53W–19L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%68%32%
3.94
Terri Schantz
35W–14L career · 2 lines in 2026
1%90%9%
3.83
Lynda Baumann
25W–48L career · 8 lines in 2026
1%92%7%
3.81
Susan Santos
30W–31L career · 2 lines in 2026
1%92%7%
3.81
4
Bonnie Lang
24W–18L career · 9 lines in 2026
1%94%5%
3.79
4
Donna Griffor
44W–21L career · 6 lines in 2026
2%94%4%
3.77
Lauren Keith
67W–51L career · 2 lines in 2026
2%94%3%
3.76
4
Carol Johnson
42W–30L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Janet Scruby
79W–48L career · 7 lines in 2026
3%95%2%
3.74
4
Bethe Orlando
24W–15L career · 3 lines in 2026
5%93%1%
3.71
Sandra Stephens
84W–57L career · 5 lines in 2026
19%81%<1%
3.62
4
Felicia Bourbon
97W–63L career · 9 lines in 2026
21%79%<1%
3.60
Merri Beth Hebeler
87W–57L career · 4 lines in 2026
49%51%<1%
3.50
Jeanne Miller
44W–42L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Laurel Fritzhand
26W–11L career · 6 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.