Teams

Natchez

2025 Adult 40 & Over-SW · Women 4.0

8 players · average NTRP 3.75 / MISSISSIPPI

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2025-05-17vs Fisher 40+Split 11
W#1 DoublesGail Guido / Nancy Laird vs Nancy Fisher / Mary Miller6-4, 6-3
L#2 DoublesBetsy Iles / Elizabeth van Uden vs Missy Kilpatrick / Paige Sullivan1-6, 1-6
2025-05-04vs Fisher 40+Lost 02
L#1 DoublesBetsy Iles / Elizabeth van Uden vs Diane Hay / Carolyn Stephens3-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesSuzan Hogue / Susan McDaniel vs Terrie Hall / Megan Case3-6, 3-6
2025-04-27vs Fisher 40+Lost 12
W#1 DoublesJane Opperman / Suzan Hogue vs Terrie Hall / Missy Kilpatrick5-7, 7-6, 1-0
L#2 DoublesElizabeth van Uden / Betsy Iles vs Heather Watts / Paige Sullivan6-7, 4-6
L#3 DoublesGail Guido / Nancy Laird vs Carol Easley / Mary Miller2-6, 2-6
2025-04-12vs Fisher 40+Lost 03
L#1 DoublesSuzan Hogue / Nancy Laird vs Carolyn Stephens / Mary Miller2-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesClaire Vecchio / Jane Opperman vs Diane Hay / Carol Easley4-6, 4-6
L#3 DoublesGail Guido / Elizabeth van Uden vs Nancy Fisher / Clyde Bean3-6, 3-6
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 Women 4.0 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 3.51 estimated across 3 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.

Gail Guido
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.66
Claire Vecchio
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.50
Nancy Laird
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
3.36
Suzan Hogue
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
Betsy Iles
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
Elizabeth van Uden
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
Jane Opperman
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
Karen Blain
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.

Nancy Laird + Gail Guido134 matchesnot enough data
Nancy Laird + Jane Opperman033 matchesnot enough data
Suzan Hogue + Jane Opperman123 matchesnot enough data
Elizabeth van Uden + Betsy Iles033 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.

4
Gail Guido
2W–7L career · 3 lines in 2025
not enough data
4
Claire Vecchio
6W–13L career · 1 line in 2025
11%89%<1%
3.66
Nancy Laird
2W–8L career · 3 lines in 2025
51%49%<1%
3.50
Suzan Hogue
8W–16L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%86%14%
3.36
3.5
Betsy Iles
0W–5L career · 3 lines in 2025
not enough data
3.5
Elizabeth van Uden
1W–13L career · 4 lines in 2025
not enough data
Jane Opperman
2W–10L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Karen Blain
0W–1L career · no 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.