Teams

CCleary-HR

2025 Eno River Adult 55 & Over · 55 & Over Adult 3.0 Women Day

13 players · average NTRP 3.07 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2025-04-29vs JHolroyd-CHCCLost 01
L#2 DoublesMarcy McKaig / Doreen Sanfelici vs Valerie Williams / Karen Sapir2-6, 2-6
2025-04-22vs JORegan-HRLost 01
L#1 DoublesMary Panek / Doreen Sanfelici vs Connie Brown / June Mader4-6, 7-6, 1-0
2025-04-08vs DWebb-ENOLost 01
L#2 DoublesCindy Cleary / Doreen Sanfelici vs Beverly Fedewa / Nancy Stovall4-6, 3-6
2025-03-25vs DGolden-CHTCLost 01
L#1 DoublesDoreen Sanfelici / Deborah Garbee vs Bailey Cook / Joelle Permutt4-6, 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 55 & Over Adult 3.0 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 2.83 estimated across 11 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.

3.14
Deborah Garbee
published 3.5
3.03
Doreen Sanfelici
usually #1 Doubles 44%, also #2 Doubles 44% · published 3
2.90
Cindy Rossitch
published 3
2.85
Doris Stam
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.83
Kathleen Fitts
published
2.80
Ann Rauchbach
published 3
2.80
Rebecca Georgi
published
2.78
Mary Panek
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Claire Bassett
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.67
Kim Craig
published
2.66
Cathy Shoemaker
published 3
2.63
Cindy Cleary
published 3
Martha Schulwitz
usually #1 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.

Rebecca Georgi + Doreen Sanfelici314 matchesnot enough data
Cindy Rossitch + Cindy Cleary224 matchesnot enough data
Cindy Rossitch + Kathleen Fitts303 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
Deborah Garbee
1W–3L career · no lines in 2025
16%84%1%
3.14
3
Doreen Sanfelici
50W–65L career · 9 lines in 2025
<1%42%58%
3.03
3
Cindy Rossitch
10W–4L career · no lines in 2025
<1%76%24%
2.90
Doris Stam
3W–9L career · 1 line in 2025
1%85%14%
2.85
Kathleen Fitts
11W–13L career · no lines in 2025
1%88%11%
2.83
3
Ann Rauchbach
4W–1L career · no lines in 2025
2%91%8%
2.80
Rebecca Georgi
7W–5L career · no lines in 2025
2%91%7%
2.80
Mary Panek
8W–8L career · 1 line in 2025
2%92%6%
2.78
3
Claire Bassett
0W–3L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Kim Craig
0W–5L career · no lines in 2025
12%88%1%
2.67
3
Cathy Shoemaker
2W–4L career · no lines in 2025
13%86%1%
2.66
3
Cindy Cleary
5W–9L career · no lines in 2025
17%82%<1%
2.63
Martha Schulwitz
0W–1L 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.