Teams

NITA S 70W55f Vaughan-Sherman/Jirsa

2024 NITA3 Summer Adult 55 & Over · NITA Summer Adult 55 & Over 7.0 Women

14 players · average NTRP 3.42 / NORTHERN ILLINOIS

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
2024-07-23vs NITA S 70W55c Rush Copley-AdamsWon 30
W#1 DoublesSuzi O'Connell / Leslie Barrows vs Mary Baker / Nancy Williford6-2, 6-0
W#2 DoublesTeresa Hunter / Elizabeth Michael vs Elizabeth Gudgeon / Janet Juarez6-4, 6-4
W#3 DoublesBecky Smith / Connie Lutz vs Sharon Martinez / DONNA SAGER7-5, 1-5, 1-0
2024-07-20vs NITA S 70W55a Naperville-BianchiLost 03
L#1 DoublesBecky Smith / Carolyn Schwartz vs Katherine Bianchi / Margaret McAndrews4-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesTeri Berger / Nancy Sherman vs Maureen Henderson / Marie Hajduk2-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesKay Noonan / Connie Lutz vs Denise McKenna / Gail Kennedy2-6, 1-6
L#1 DoublesNancy Sherman / Julie Moss vs Julie Roth / Lisa Ventrella3-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesTeresa Hunter / Teri Berger vs Marisa Mancini / Holly Kost2-6, 4-6
L#3 DoublesDonna McAlister / Elizabeth Michael vs Jeanine Janzen / Pam Kuchan5-7, 1-6
2024-06-22vs NITA S 70W55b Wheaton-OhlsonLost 02
L#1 DoublesLeslie Barrows / Julie Moss vs Laura King / Karen McClure3-6, 4-6
L#2 DoublesKay Noonan / Carolyn Schwartz vs Julie Bump / Carla Rhoads1-6, 1-6
L#1 DoublesTeri Berger / Carolyn Schwartz vs Julie Burke-Concannon / Christine Lee3-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesConnie Lutz / Leslie Barrows vs Marjorie Bogdalek / Tracy Reese2-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesTeresa Hunter / Elizabeth Michael vs Ann Chapman / Salve Messina6-3, 2-6, 0-1
2024-06-06vs NITA S 70W55e Challenge-SharpLost 12
L#1 DoublesSuzi O'Connell / Becky Smith vs Micki Naal / Catherine Wasylenko6-1, 1-6, 0-1
L#2 DoublesTeri Berger / Nancy Sherman vs Denise Rippetoe-Reed / Jean Palasz1-6, 1-6
W#3 DoublesCarolyn Schwartz / Teresa Hunter vs Joy Mullady / Sue Keough6-3, 1-6, 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 · NITA Summer Adult 55 & Over 7.0 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1NITA S 70W55a Naperville-Bianchi601627126
2NITA S 70W55g Naperville-Sheridan/Ruden511449115
3NITA S 70W55d Courts Plus-Bursch/Roth3310819168
4NITA S 70W55c Rush Copley-Adams3381021164
5NITA S 70W55e Challenge-Sharp2471124159
6NITA S 70W55b Wheaton-Ohlson1541429183
7NITA S 70W55f Vaughan-Sherman/Jirsa1541430192

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 3.07 estimated across 5 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.

3.36
Abigail Torres
published 3.5
3.35
Elizabeth Michael
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
Connie Lutz
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
Denise Jirsa
published 3.5
3.20
Suzi O'Connell
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.01
Carolyn Schwartz
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
2.43
Kay Noonan
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3
Donna McAlister
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Julie Moss
published
Leslie Barrows
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
Nancy Sherman
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
Susan Kloberdanz
published
Teresa Hunter
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
Teri Berger
usually #2 Doubles 75%, 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.

Kay Noonan + Carolyn Schwartz224 matchesnot enough data
Kay Noonan + Connie Lutz033 matchesnot enough data
Nancy Sherman + Teri Berger123 matchesnot enough data
Nancy Sherman + Susan Kloberdanz303 matchesnot enough data
Carolyn Schwartz + Leslie Barrows123 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
Abigail Torres
63W–44L career · no lines in 2024
<1%85%15%
3.36
3.5
Elizabeth Michael
15W–23L career · 3 lines in 2024
<1%88%12%
3.35
3.5
Connie Lutz
2W–9L career · 3 lines in 2024
not enough data
3.5
Denise Jirsa
3W–14L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
Suzi O'Connell
10W–9L career · 2 lines in 2024
6%93%1%
3.20
3.5
Carolyn Schwartz
14W–20L career · 4 lines in 2024
46%54%<1%
3.01
3
Kay Noonan
46W–104L career · 2 lines in 2024
70%30%<1%
2.43
Donna McAlister
0W–1L career · 1 line in 2024
not enough data
Julie Moss
6W–2L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
Leslie Barrows
6W–29L career · 3 lines in 2024
not enough data
Nancy Sherman
9W–28L career · 3 lines in 2024
not enough data
Susan Kloberdanz
8W–2L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
Teresa Hunter
15W–24L career · 4 lines in 2024
not enough data
Teri Berger
4W–17L career · 4 lines in 2024
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.