Teams

JNCC Silver Wings

2025 55 & OVER Mixed Doubles · 7.0

10 players · average NTRP 3.50 / TEXAS

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 →
Schedule3 played
2025-09-21vs Aged to PerfectionWon 30
W#1 DoublesAmy Flowers / Dean Fredrick vs Sara Folmar / Jason Nydegger6-1, 6-2
W#2 DoublesPhillip Fields / Teresa Mirarchi vs Dianne Moe / Michael Saylor6-2, 7-5
W#3 DoublesLeslie Anderson / Mark Grove vs Doreen Amft / Nando Gonzalez6-3, 6-1
2025-09-21vs Aged to PerfectionSplit 11
L#1 DoublesRobyn Clement / Stephen Lyssy vs Gina Jones / Matthew Muddiman4-6, 5-7
W#2 DoublesDean Fredrick / Leslie Anderson vs Doreen Amft / Nando Gonzalez6-1, 6-4
2025-08-31vs Aged to PerfectionWon 10
W#1 DoublesStephen Lyssy / Kristi Bertelsman vs Nando Gonzalez / Dianne Moe6-0, 6-1
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 7.0 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 3.22 estimated across 7 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.

3.44
Phillip Fields
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.42
Stephen Lyssy
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.41
Dean Fredrick
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
Amy Flowers
published 3.5
3.21
Teresa Mirarchi
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.17
Kristi Bertelsman
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.04
Robyn Clement
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.87
Fiona Payton
published
Erica Jones
published
Mark Grove
usually #3 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.

Dean Fredrick + Fiona Payton3446% gamesnot enough data
Phillip Fields + Teresa Mirarchi3357% gamesnot enough data
Stephen Lyssy + Teresa Mirarchi123 matchesnot enough data
Mark Grove + Teresa Mirarchi033 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.

Phillip Fields
13W–21L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%66%34%
3.44
Stephen Lyssy
27W–23L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%72%27%
3.42
3.5
Dean Fredrick
33W–20L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%73%27%
3.41
3.5
Amy Flowers
no matches on record · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Teresa Mirarchi
12W–18L career · 1 line in 2025
7%91%2%
3.21
Kristi Bertelsman
7W–12L career · 1 line in 2025
11%88%1%
3.17
Robyn Clement
10W–19L career · 1 line in 2025
39%61%<1%
3.04
Fiona Payton
11W–21L career · no lines in 2025
82%18%<1%
2.87
Erica Jones
2W–1L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Mark Grove
3W–6L 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.