Teams

BROADSTONE RC 40AW3.5A-DT

2025 ADULT 40&Over - Daytime · Women's 3.5

13 players · average NTRP 3.40 / NO. CALIFORNIA

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 →
Schedule2 played
2025-02-18vs GOLD RIVER RC 40AW3.5C-DTWon 30
W#1 DoublesDenise Chisick / Betty Williams vs Chris Feusahrens / Susan Grahame6-1, 1-6, 1-0
W#1 SinglesLinda Mcclain vs Corona Meredith2-6, 6-2, 1-0
W#2 DoublesJesusa Susan Flynn / Theresa Warren vs Susan Drummond / Judy Kuhl7-5, 6-4
2025-01-14vs GOLD RIVER RC 40AW3.5C-DTLost 12
L#1 DoublesRoberta Levens / Maggie Mei Choy vs Judy Kuhl / Deborah Nordeen4-6, 4-6
L#1 SinglesCarolyn Insalaco vs Corona Meredith3-6, 1-6
W#2 DoublesJesusa Susan Flynn / Liz Bissell vs Duffy Kelly / Sandy Plumb6-2, 6-3
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's 3.5 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 3.24 estimated across 11 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.

3.60
Linda Mcclain
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
3.52
Elaine Yap
published
3.31
Jesusa Susan Flynn
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.27
Mary Roy
published
3.25
Christina Charn
published 3.5
Carolyn Insalaco
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 3.5
3.24
Liz Bissell
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.18
Denise Chisick
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.17
Roberta Levens
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.14
Betty Williams
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.13
Maggie Mei Choy
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.79
Debbie Rayner
published 3
Theresa Warren
usually #2 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.

Linda Mcclain + Elaine Yap12757% games+5.1% vs expected
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.

Linda Mcclain
33W–27L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%24%76%
3.60
Elaine Yap
21W–20L career · no lines in 2025
<1%45%55%
3.52
Jesusa Susan Flynn
4W–3L career · 2 lines in 2025
1%90%9%
3.31
Mary Roy
1W–3L career · no lines in 2025
3%92%5%
3.27
3.5
Christina Charn
7W–11L career · no lines in 2025
4%93%4%
3.25
3.5
Carolyn Insalaco
1W–2L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Liz Bissell
6W–4L career · 1 line in 2025
4%92%3%
3.24
3.5
Denise Chisick
6W–10L career · 1 line in 2025
10%89%1%
3.18
Roberta Levens
4W–12L career · 1 line in 2025
11%88%1%
3.17
3.5
Betty Williams
4W–4L career · 1 line in 2025
16%83%<1%
3.14
Maggie Mei Choy
4W–7L career · 1 line in 2025
18%81%<1%
3.13
3
Debbie Rayner
1W–3L career · no lines in 2025
2%91%7%
2.79
Theresa Warren
1W–2L 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.