Teams

Arthur/40s/7.5/SC

2025 Man · Cov Southern Combo 40 & Over - Women Night

12 players · average NTRP 3.67 / LOUISIANA

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2025-09-29Lost 01
L#2 DoublesKelly Slimming / Suzanne Weidenbacher vs Janine Hodges / Amanda Turner7-5, 3-6, 0-1
2025-08-18Lost 01
L#3 DoublesAmy Arthur / Suzanne Weidenbacher vs Trish Padilla / Amanda Turner2-6, 5-7
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 standings for Cov Southern Combo 40 & Over - Women Night 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 3.67 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.

4.08
Michelle Biehler
usually #1 Doubles 85%, also #3 Doubles 15% · published
3.87
Cherie Pausina
usually #2 Doubles 39%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.54
Alysha Schroeder
usually #3 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published 3.5
3.20
Amy Arthur
usually #1 Doubles 36%, also #3 Doubles 36% · published 3.5
Kathleen Wells
usually #1 Doubles 44%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
Kelly Slimming
usually #1 Doubles 40%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
Kim Osborn
usually #1 Doubles 36%, also #2 Doubles 32% · published
Pamela Layton
usually #3 Doubles 57%, also #2 Doubles 29% · published
Rhonda Eckholdt
usually #2 Doubles 46%, also #1 Doubles 42% · published
Stephanie Rolling
usually #1 Doubles 52%, also #2 Doubles 39% · published
Suzanne Weidenbacher
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
Yvette Favret
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 33% · 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.

Michelle Biehler + Stephanie Rolling4264% gamesnot enough data
Cherie Pausina + Stephanie Rolling4158% gamesnot enough data
Cherie Pausina + Rhonda Eckholdt044 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.

Michelle Biehler
36W–11L career · 20 lines in 2025
29%71%<1%
4.08
4
Cherie Pausina
14W–18L career · 18 lines in 2025
<1%82%17%
3.87
3.5
Alysha Schroeder
18W–15L career · type A · 5 lines in 2025
<1%38%62%
3.54
3.5
Amy Arthur
9W–8L career · 11 lines in 2025
8%90%1%
3.20
Kathleen Wells
4W–7L career · 9 lines in 2025
not enough data
Kelly Slimming
43W–34L career · 38 lines in 2025
not enough data
Kim Osborn
23W–21L career · 25 lines in 2025
not enough data
Pamela Layton
1W–11L career · 7 lines in 2025
not enough data
Rhonda Eckholdt
30W–23L career · 24 lines in 2025
not enough data
Stephanie Rolling
23W–15L career · 23 lines in 2025
not enough data
Suzanne Weidenbacher
0W–2L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Yvette Favret
5W–5L career · 6 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.