Teams

Blue 1: Crossley/PH

2025 TUL ADULT 55 & Over League · 6.0 WOMEN

14 players · average NTRP 3.00 / OKLAHOMA

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 →
Schedule1 played
2025-04-12vs Blue 2: Sacra/LFWon 21
L#1 DoublesMary Lamoreaux / Malisa Nell vs Susan Hargis / Kay Jones3-6, 4-6
W#2 DoublesGinger Penn / Lisa Charvat vs Barb Drotar / Patricia Stuart6-2, 6-0
W#3 DoublesJill Jmaeff / Jenny Sellers vs Donna Hazle / Stacy Herring7-5, 6-2
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 6.0 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 2.69 estimated across 13 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.

2.90
Ginger Penn
usually #3 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3
2.85
Dena Dye
published 3
2.83
Jenny Sellers
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.73
Beverly Davison
published 3
2.72
Mary Lamoreaux
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.71
Lisa Charvat
usually #3 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
2.68
Marilynda Kuehn
published
2.67
Liliana Crossley
published
2.66
Candace Chonka
published 3
2.64
Malisa Nell
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
2.63
Martha Endsley
published
2.51
2.47
Jill Jmaeff
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Mary Colpitt
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.

Jenny Sellers + Jill Jmaeff5357% games+5.2% vs expected
Ginger Penn + Lisa Charvat161350% games+2.6% vs expected
Martha Endsley + Liliana Crossley9358% games+2.1% vs expected
Martha Endsley + Jill Jmaeff2443% games−0.7% vs expected
Jenny Sellers + Martha Endsley2356% games−1.7% vs expected
Martha Endsley + Lisa Charvat6354% games−1.8% vs expected
Jill Jmaeff + Mary Colpitt3452% games−2.5% vs expected
Gayle Roberts-Pisklo + Jill Jmaeff3546% games−4.8% 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.

3
Ginger Penn
138W–113L career · 4 lines in 2025
<1%79%21%
2.90
3
Dena Dye
56W–34L career · no lines in 2025
<1%86%13%
2.85
Jenny Sellers
38W–30L career · 1 line in 2025
1%90%10%
2.83
3
Beverly Davison
37W–35L career · no lines in 2025
4%94%2%
2.73
Mary Lamoreaux
48W–76L career · 1 line in 2025
5%94%2%
2.72
Lisa Charvat
70W–61L career · 4 lines in 2025
5%93%1%
2.71
Marilynda Kuehn
48W–55L career · no lines in 2025
8%91%1%
2.68
Liliana Crossley
72W–44L career · no lines in 2025
9%90%1%
2.67
3
Candace Chonka
60W–64L career · no lines in 2025
10%89%<1%
2.66
Malisa Nell
69W–112L career · 3 lines in 2025
14%86%<1%
2.64
Martha Endsley
74W–48L career · no lines in 2025
15%84%<1%
2.63
3
Gayle Roberts-Pisklo
28W–39L career · type A · no lines in 2025
46%54%<1%
2.51
Jill Jmaeff
81W–122L career · 1 line in 2025
60%40%<1%
2.47
Mary Colpitt
41W–34L 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.