Teams

Savoy - DTW

2025 Adult 55 & Over-GC · Women 4.0

10 players · average NTRP / MISSISSIPPI

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2025-04-28vs Biloxi - ShoemakeWon 21
W#1 DoublesLucy Stevens / Tina Brown vs Jan Salloum / Julie West7-6, 6-2
L#2 DoublesEdye Austin / Gwen Urbati vs Amanda Letonoff / April Mechatto2-6, 2-6
W#3 DoublesMary Kay Walk / Jennifer Hailes vs Paula Moore / Candace McCarty5-7, 7-6, 1-0
2025-03-06vs Biloxi - ShoemakeLost 12
W#1 DoublesNicole Montagnet / Mary Ann Strickland vs Lynette Cooper / Amanda Letonoff7-6, 5-7, 1-0
L#2 DoublesLucy Stevens / Jennifer Hailes vs Laura Marcel / Julie West4-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesLaurraine McKenzie / Tina Brown vs Nancy Howell / Christina Robinson1-6, 6-4, 0-1
2025-02-16vs Biloxi - ShoemakeLost 03
L#1 DoublesFran Seal / Mary Kay Walk vs Amanda Letonoff / Christina Robinson0-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesMary Ann Strickland / Michelle Savoy vs Nancy Howell / Eileen Panter3-6, 2-6
L#3 DoublesTina Brown / Laurraine McKenzie vs Dianne Holloway / Margaret Morgan-Bowman6-4, 4-6, 0-1
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 Women 4.0 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 3.29 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.

3.61
Mary Ann Strickland
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.43
Lucy Stevens
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.36
Laurraine McKenzie
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.36
Nicole Montagnet
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.34
Edye Austin
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.21
Jennifer Hailes
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
3.19
Gwen Urbati
usually #1 Doubles 43%, also #3 Doubles 29% · published
2.83
Mary Kay Walk
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
Fran Seal
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Michelle Savoy
usually #2 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.

Gwen Urbati + Edye Austin9750% games+1.8% vs expected
Mary Ann Strickland + Michelle Savoy134 matchesnot enough data
Mary Ann Strickland + Nicole Montagnet314 matchesnot enough data
Laurraine McKenzie + Jennifer Hailes123 matchesnot enough data
Mary Kay Walk + Jennifer Hailes213 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.

Mary Ann Strickland
13W–17L career · 2 lines in 2025
22%78%<1%
3.61
Lucy Stevens
13W–16L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%70%30%
3.43
Laurraine McKenzie
8W–16L career · 2 lines in 2025
84%16%<1%
3.36
Nicole Montagnet
38W–17L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%1%99%
3.36
Edye Austin
23W–14L career · 1 line in 2025
1%86%13%
3.34
Jennifer Hailes
23W–27L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%6%94%
3.21
Gwen Urbati
54W–26L career · 7 lines in 2025
8%90%1%
3.19
Mary Kay Walk
10W–22L career · 2 lines in 2025
1%88%11%
2.83
Fran Seal
2W–7L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Michelle Savoy
1W–5L career · 1 line in 2025
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.