Teams

PRC Fab Ladies

Adult 65 & Over Summer · 7.0 Women Super Senior - Central Day NJD

24 players · average NTRP 3.40 / NEW JERSEY

View scouting list →
Schedule9 played
2026-07-07vs NJD/The Fox DenWon 21
L#1 DoublesHelen Milner / Judy Singleton vs Pat Paruszewski / Carol MacLennan2-6, 2-6
W#2 DoublesKaren Donahue / Tami Sasala vs Sarah Larocco / Deb Williams6-0, 6-1
W#3 DoublesShelley Berger / Helene Fair vs Lisa Dennison / Karen Zimmermann6-4, 6-0
2026-06-23vs Volley Vets PlevaWon 21
L#1 DoublesShelley Berger / Sue Fabisak vs Nancy Plum / Mary Pieretti4-6, 3-6
W#2 DoublesMarie Mascio / Helene Fair vs Ardeth Black / Peggy McDermott6-4, 6-2
W#3 DoublesHelen Milner / Jill Pincus vs Kay Chen / Bonnie Goldman6-2, 6-2
2026-06-16vs HFC Fun GalsLost 12
L#1 DoublesChari McClary / Lulu Ablan vs Jane Bulman / Sherry Gerber3-6, 5-6
W#2 DoublesShelley Berger / Judy Singleton vs Pat Austin / Sheila O'Connell7-5, 6-2
L#3 DoublesMarie Mascio / Helene Fair vs Barbara Yuhas / Anne Pellon7-6, 4-6, 1-0
2026-06-09vs NJD/The Fox DenLost 03
L#1 DoublesAndrea Franz / Jill Pincus vs Elisabeth Secosky / Lynn Tavani2-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesJanet Ronan / Mary Beth Mapes vs Carol MacLennan / Ellena Jonas2-6, 6-2, 0-1
L#3 DoublesJudy Sarvary / Lynn di Gioia vs Karen Zimmermann / Denise Munafo0-6, 3-6
2026-06-02vs Volley Vets PlevaWon 21
L#1 DoublesTami Sasala / Karen Donahue vs Mary Pieretti / Nancy Plum4-6, 6-0, 0-1
W#2 DoublesToni-Ann Murphy / Helen Milner vs Kay Chen / Betsy Rendall6-1, 6-3
W#3 DoublesLulu Ablan / Chari McClary vs Peggy McDermott / Janice Blumberg6-2, 6-4
2026-05-26vs HFC Fun GalsLost 12
L#1 DoublesLynn di Gioia / Melanie Neubelt vs Debra Resnick / Sheila O'Connell2-6, 6-3, 0-1
W#2 DoublesShelley Berger / Mary Beth Mapes vs Anne Barbour / Anne Pellon6-2, 6-4
L#3 DoublesJean Zhang / Sue Fabisak vs Deborah Contre / Valerie Jones1-6, 4-6
2026-05-19vs NJD/The Fox DenLost 12
W#1 DoublesKaren Donahue / Tami Sasala vs Carolyn Kamison / Elisabeth Secosky5-7, 4-0, 1-0
L#2 DoublesJean Zhang / Toni-Ann Murphy vs Donna Costa / Lisa Dennison7-6, 1-3, 0-1
L#3 DoublesAndrea Franz / Elizabeth Zuckerman vs Renee McNellis / Sarah Larocco3-6, 3-6
2026-05-12vs Volley Vets PlevaWon 21
W#1 DoublesLynn di Gioia / Melanie Neubelt vs Nancy Plum / June Millington6-4, 4-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesElizabeth Zuckerman / Lucia Marchetta vs Anne Kabay / Mary Pieretti6-3, 1-6, 1-0
L#3 DoublesHelene Fair / Mary Beth Mapes vs Kay Chen / Betsy Rendall1-6, 4-6
2026-05-05vs HFC Fun GalsLost 03
L#1 DoublesJudy Sarvary / Melanie Neubelt vs Jane Bulman / Sheila O'Connell3-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesHelene Fair / Judy Singleton vs Valerie Jones / Debra Resnick2-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesLucia Marchetta / Rong Nie vs Anne Pellon / Barbara Yuhas6-7, 3-6
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 7.0 Women Super Senior - Central Day NJD 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 3.07 estimated across 22 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.

3.69
Chari McClary
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.49
Shelley Berger
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
3.35
Karen Donahue
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.35
Jean Zhang
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
3.32
Toni-Ann Murphy
usually #3 Doubles 40%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published
3.32
Tami Sasala
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.32
Helen Milner
usually #2 Doubles 40%, also #3 Doubles 40% · published 3.5
Andrea Franz
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.24
Marie Mascio
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
3.08
Doris Manahan
published 3.5
3.08
Janet Ronan
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.04
Elizabeth Zuckerman
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.03
Melanie Neubelt
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.94
Rong Nie
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.88
Judy Sarvary
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
2.87
Judy Singleton
usually #2 Doubles 80%, also #1 Doubles 20% · published
2.86
Lucia Marchetta
usually #2 Doubles 57%, also #3 Doubles 29% · published 3
2.83
Lorraine Samara
published
2.79
Mary Beth Mapes
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 3
2.78
Lulu Ablan
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
2.76
Jill Pincus
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published
2.75
Helene Fair
usually #3 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published 3
2.67
Sue Fabisak
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published
Lynn di Gioia
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 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.

Lucia Marchetta + Jill Pincus4253% games+3.0% vs expected
Tami Sasala + Karen Donahue542162% games+0.1% vs expected
Sue Fabisak + Lulu Ablan5070% gamesnot enough data
Marie Mascio + Helene Fair3249% gamesnot enough data
Lulu Ablan + Lucia Marchetta2349% gamesnot enough data
Mary Beth Mapes + Doris Manahan134 matchesnot enough data
Mary Beth Mapes + Helen Milner314 matchesnot enough data
Lorraine Samara + Doris Manahan044 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.

4
Chari McClary
82W–72L career · 6 lines in 2026
7%92%1%
3.69
Shelley Berger
152W–152L career · 4 lines in 2026
53%47%<1%
3.49
Karen Donahue
85W–38L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%87%12%
3.35
Jean Zhang
72W–33L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%88%12%
3.35
Toni-Ann Murphy
14W–12L career · 5 lines in 2026
1%91%9%
3.32
3.5
Tami Sasala
139W–59L career · 3 lines in 2026
1%91%8%
3.32
3.5
Helen Milner
62W–47L career · 5 lines in 2026
1%91%8%
3.32
3.5
Andrea Franz
0W–9L career · type S · 2 lines in 2026
not enough data
Marie Mascio
16W–22L career · 2 lines in 2026
3%94%2%
3.24
3.5
Doris Manahan
64W–56L career · no lines in 2026
27%73%<1%
3.08
3.5
Janet Ronan
62W–64L career · 1 line in 2026
28%72%<1%
3.08
3.5
Elizabeth Zuckerman
29W–28L career · 2 lines in 2026
39%61%<1%
3.04
Melanie Neubelt
95W–65L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%40%60%
3.03
Rong Nie
125W–218L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%69%31%
2.94
Judy Sarvary
54W–63L career · 2 lines in 2026
82%18%<1%
2.88
Judy Singleton
47W–45L career · 5 lines in 2026
<1%84%15%
2.87
3
Lucia Marchetta
101W–87L career · 7 lines in 2026
<1%86%14%
2.86
Lorraine Samara
16W–32L career · no lines in 2026
<1%89%10%
2.83
3
Mary Beth Mapes
61W–81L career · 4 lines in 2026
1%93%6%
2.79
Lulu Ablan
80W–63L career · 4 lines in 2026
1%94%5%
2.78
Jill Pincus
30W–46L career · 5 lines in 2026
2%94%3%
2.76
3
Helene Fair
33W–66L career · 5 lines in 2026
3%95%3%
2.75
Sue Fabisak
88W–76L career · 4 lines in 2026
10%90%1%
2.67
Lynn di Gioia
2W–9L career · 3 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.