Teams

Lafont/55/3.5/NOD/GACC

2025 NO Adult 55 & Over - Women Day · 3.5 NO (55&O) Women Day

12 players · average NTRP 3.50 / LOUISIANA

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2025-03-26vs Petagna/55/3.5/NOD/NOLTCWon 21
W#1 DoublesJenny Stone / Rebel Daigle Salsbury vs Renee Labadie / Marylou Freiberg7-6, 6-2
L#2 DoublesJulie Purdy / Maureen Nelson vs Elizabeth Todd / Carlotta Fritchie1-6, 6-2, 1-0
W#3 DoublesPhyllis Smith / Kristi Alfortish vs Shannon Cooney Johnston / Joan Doyle6-4, 6-1
2025-03-19vs Reed/55/3.5/NOD/ASTCLost 03
L#1 DoublesJenny Stone / Rebel Daigle Salsbury vs Laura Ramirez / Elaine Waguespack4-6, 6-2, 0-1
L#2 DoublesPatricia France / Patricia Posecai vs Lorri Murray / Michelle Osborne4-6, 0-6
L#3 DoublesMaureen Nelson / Stacey Liljeberg vs Diane Triay / Marilyn Foucheaux6-7, 2-6
2025-02-26vs Thibodaux/55/3.5/NOD/CPLost 03
L#1 DoublesKristi Alfortish / Julie Purdy vs Jeannine Thibodaux / Linda Doyle6-7, 4-6
L#2 DoublesPhyllis Smith / Lila Rivas vs Lisette Lichtenstein / Susan Lang6-7, 3-6
L#3 DoublesClaudia Theard / Patricia Posecai vs Kym Valene / Kathy Cooke4-6, 6-1, 0-1
2025-02-12vs Tabb/55/3.5/NOD/NOCCWon 21
W#1 DoublesStacey Liljeberg / Kristi Alfortish vs Bo Farrell / Mariann Wilson2-6, 6-1, 1-0
L#2 DoublesClaudia Theard / Patricia France vs Boo Charbonnet / Henriette Harris3-6, 3-6
W#3 DoublesPatricia Posecai / Robin Lafont vs Meredith Picou / Bridget Lawrence6-4, 7-6
2025-02-03vs Rosenthal/55/3.5/NOD/ASTCWon 21
W#1 DoublesPatricia Posecai / Kristi Alfortish vs Sandy Rosenthal / Judy Hendel6-1, 7-5
L#2 DoublesClaudia Theard / Robin Lafont vs Cynthia Knight / Janice Leaumont5-7, 1-6
W#3 DoublesLila Rivas / Phyllis Smith vs Celia Deininger / Charlotte Bracey6-4, 6-2
2025-01-15vs Taylor/55/3.5/NOD/MCCWon 30
W#1 DoublesJenny Stone / Rebel Daigle Salsbury vs Jennifer Rabalais / Leslie Fawer6-2, 6-0
W#2 DoublesPatricia France / Maureen Nelson vs Lori Rodrigue / Amy Maniscalco6-2, 7-5
W#3 DoublesJulie Purdy / Stacey Liljeberg vs Amy Taylor / Lisa Yarborough2-6, 6-1, 1-0
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 standings7 teams · 3.5 NO (55&O) Women Day
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Reed/55/3.5/NOD/ASTC60180293
2Petagna/55/3.5/NOD/NOLTC4210820156
3Lafont/55/3.5/NOD/GACC429920159
4Taylor/55/3.5/NOD/MCC3371124173
5Thibodaux/55/3.5/NOD/CP2481023176
6Tabb/55/3.5/NOD/NOCC2481024169
7Rosenthal/55/3.5/NOD/ASTC0631532206

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 3.19 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.

3.60
Rebel Daigle Salsbury
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.33
Julie Purdy
usually #3 Doubles 60%, also #1 Doubles 20% · published
3.29
Jenny Stone
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.23
Robin Lafont
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
3.21
Kristi Alfortish
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
3.16
Phyllis Smith
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.12
Patricia France
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.10
Maureen Nelson
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
3.05
Lila Rivas
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
3.04
Claudia Theard
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.01
Stacey Liljeberg
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
Patricia Posecai
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 25% · 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.

Jenny Stone + Rebel Daigle Salsbury6167% games+10.4% vs expected
Stacey Liljeberg + Kristi Alfortish4844% games+0.9% vs expected
Phyllis Smith + Maureen Nelson3447% games−0.5% vs expected
Julie Purdy + Jenny Stone2351% games−2.7% vs expected
Phyllis Smith + Lila Rivas1439% games−3.3% vs expected
Claudia Theard + Robin Lafont1540% games−9.3% vs expected
Patricia France + Kristi Alfortish134 matchesnot enough data
Phyllis Smith + Julie Purdy303 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.

Rebel Daigle Salsbury
84W–29L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%23%77%
3.60
Julie Purdy
41W–43L career · 5 lines in 2025
1%90%10%
3.33
Jenny Stone
90W–58L career · 3 lines in 2025
1%94%5%
3.29
Robin Lafont
19W–19L career · 2 lines in 2025
4%94%2%
3.23
Kristi Alfortish
16W–21L career · 4 lines in 2025
5%93%1%
3.21
Phyllis Smith
24W–26L career · 3 lines in 2025
12%88%<1%
3.16
Patricia France
12W–16L career · 3 lines in 2025
18%81%<1%
3.12
Maureen Nelson
13W–18L career · 3 lines in 2025
21%79%<1%
3.10
Lila Rivas
15W–26L career · 2 lines in 2025
35%65%<1%
3.05
3.5
Claudia Theard
9W–14L career · 3 lines in 2025
37%63%<1%
3.04
Stacey Liljeberg
10W–22L career · 3 lines in 2025
48%52%<1%
3.01
Patricia Posecai
11W–14L career · 4 lines 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.