Teams

SC:Macri

2022 NH Adult 55 & Over Women Day · 7.0 Women

6 players · average NTRP 3.00 / NEW HAMPSHIRE

View scouting list →
Schedule8 played
2022-03-10vs CON:Kruzel:WaldvogetLost 02
L#1 DoublesAlison Robie / Ruth Gray vs Michelle Gould / Marie Stevens5-7, 6-4, 0-1
L#2 DoublesCynthia Godin / Kathleen Shannon vs Debra Moore / Patricia Waldvogel1-6, 3-6
L#1 DoublesKaren Burgon / Stephanie Bartlett vs Elizabeth Wohler Stowe / Dawn Smith4-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesJane Ingram / Susan Maloney vs Betsy Kretschmer / Betsy Chapin1-6, 2-6
L#3 DoublesKathleen Shannon / Cynthia Godin vs Joyce Sylvester / Nancy Tothill6-2, 2-6, 0-1
2022-01-27vs GB:LovejoyLost 02
L#1 DoublesJane Ingram / Mary Coite vs Mary Lafreniere / Wendy Poutre5-7, 1-6
L#3 DoublesKaren Burgon / Cynthia Godin vs Barbara Carleton / Ginger Kraus3-6, 4-6
2022-01-13vs WWCC:CarpeDivas:Breton:BurkeWon 10
W#1 DoublesSusan MacRi / Jane Ingram vs Holly Lowe-Adamy / Diane Szmyd6-1, 6-1
L#1 DoublesMary Coite / Alison Robie vs Betsy Chapin / Elizabeth Wohler Stowe4-6, 4-6
L#3 DoublesSusan MacRi / Cynthia Godin vs Janet McDonough / Barbara Shegog1-6, 2-6
2021-10-28vs GB:LovejoySplit 11
L#1 DoublesSusan MacRi / Mary Coite vs Lynn Russ / Wendy Poutre6-2, 2-6, 0-1
W#3 DoublesSusan Maloney / Jane Ingram vs Anne Tall / Ginger Kraus6-0, 6-3
2021-10-14vs WWCC:CarpeDivas:Breton:BurkeWon 20
W#1 DoublesStephanie Bartlett / Karen Burgon vs Holly Lowe-Adamy / Lisa Phelan4-6, 6-3, 1-0
W#3 DoublesCharlotte LaPierre / Cynthia Godin vs Sandra Jalbert / Beth Gaffey2-6, 6-4, 1-0
2021-09-30vs CON:Kruzel:WaldvogetSplit 11
W#1 DoublesSusan MacRi / Kelly Habig vs Mary Kruzel / Marie Stevens6-3, 6-1
L#2 DoublesMary Coite / Floortje Walther vs Debra Moore / Patricia Waldvogel4-6, 7-5, 0-1
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 Women 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 2.95 estimated across 2 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.

2.96
Ruth Gray
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.94
Jane Ingram
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
Cynthia Godin
usually #3 Doubles 80%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published 3
Mary Coite
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
Stephanie Bartlett
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Susan MacRi
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
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.

Ruth Gray
21W–45L career · 1 line in 2022
63%37%<1%
2.96
Jane Ingram
12W–29L career · 4 lines in 2022
66%34%<1%
2.94
3
Cynthia Godin
24W–38L career · 5 lines in 2022
not enough data
Mary Coite
39W–26L career · 4 lines in 2022
not enough data
Stephanie Bartlett
40W–41L career · 2 lines in 2022
not enough data
Susan MacRi
20W–22L career · 4 lines in 2022
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.