Teams

55s Q Team

2025 USTA Adult 55 & Over · Women 9.0 - 55 & Over

10 players · average NTRP / MONTANA

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
2025-08-20vs Montana/Ziegler/55&OverSplit 11
W#1 DoublesElizabeth Brennan / Sherrie Fuller-Benge vs AMY BELLAMAH-DANIEL / Mary Thane6-3, 6-3
L#3 DoublesJanet Larsh / Stacie Wunsch vs Heather Silverman / Paige Darden3-6, 2-6
2025-08-19vs Montana/Ziegler/55&OverLost 12
W#1 DoublesKrista Parham / Emily Hall vs Susie Luebbe / Melissa Clark5-7, 6-4, 1-0
L#2 DoublesStacie Wunsch / Katie Bark vs Stacey Ziegler / Ann Waters3-6, 4-6
L#3 DoublesJanet Larsh / Kandy Chain vs Heather Silverman / Paige Darden3-6, 4-6
2025-08-04vs Montana/Ziegler/55&OverLost 12
W#1 DoublesMichele Hill / Krista Parham vs Susie Luebbe / Melissa Clark7-6, 5-7, 1-0
L#2 DoublesStacie Wunsch / Katie Bark vs Stacey Ziegler / Ann Waters4-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesElizabeth Brennan / Sherrie Fuller-Benge vs Mary Thane / AMY BELLAMAH-DANIEL0-6, 6-7
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 standings2 teams · Women 9.0 - 55 & Over
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Montana/Ziegler/55&Over3063667
255s Q Team033614103

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 3.59 estimated across 4 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.

3.83
Sherrie Fuller-Benge
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.67
Emily Hall
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.60
Michele Hill
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.24
Elizabeth Brennan
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
Jan DeCosse
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Janet Larsh
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Katie Bark
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
Krista Parham
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Paula Thomson
published
Stacie Wunsch
usually #3 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 40% · 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.

Sherrie Fuller-Benge + Elizabeth Brennan213 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.

Sherrie Fuller-Benge
19W–27L career · 2 lines in 2025
1%88%12%
3.83
Emily Hall
30W–21L career · 1 line in 2025
12%88%1%
3.67
Michele Hill
74W–49L career · 1 line in 2025
23%77%<1%
3.60
Elizabeth Brennan
19W–18L career · 2 lines in 2025
97%3%<1%
3.24
Jan DeCosse
28W–22L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Janet Larsh
4W–5L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Katie Bark
11W–16L career · 4 lines in 2025
not enough data
Krista Parham
29W–5L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Paula Thomson
14W–8L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Stacie Wunsch
12W–18L career · 5 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.