Teams

Brookover/IS

2021 TUL ADULT 55 & Over League · 9.0 WOMEN

12 players · average NTRP 4.25 / 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 →
Schedule7 played
2021-03-13vs MOValley/Grooms/55&Over9.0WWon 21
L#1 DoublesMary Bursack / Janet Chambers vs Marcia Hogsett / Jennifer Graham2-6, 1-6
W#2 DoublesJana Brookover / Karen Frank vs Deborah Coogan / Vikki Williams7-6, 4-4, 1-0
W#3 DoublesMelissa Little / Ginger Wade vs Sandy Roberts / Ann Bonadeo6-3, 6-2
2021-03-04vs MOValley/Grooms/55&Over9.0WLost 12
W#1 DoublesLaura Allman / Janet Chambers vs Deborah Coogan / Sandy Roberts6-4, 6-0
L#2 DoublesAmanda Scroggs / Mary Fox vs Marcia Hogsett / Krista Parham7-5, 2-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesJana Brookover / Sharon Anthamatten vs Ann Bonadeo / Jenny Marcos1-6, 1-6
2021-02-27vs MOValley/Grooms/55&Over9.0WWon 21
W#1 DoublesJana Brookover / Sharon Anthamatten vs Laura Grooms / Jennifer Graham6-4, 6-2
W#2 DoublesMary Bursack / Mary Fox vs Kelle Rutz / Ann Bonadeo6-3, 6-2
L#3 DoublesMelissa Little / Ginger Wade vs Krista Parham / Alice Dorris2-6, 0-6
2021-02-23vs MOValley/Grooms/55&Over9.0WWon 21
W#1 DoublesLaura Allman / Janet Chambers vs Marcia Hogsett / Deborah Coogan6-2, 6-2
L#2 DoublesSharon Anthamatten / Amanda Scroggs vs Laura Grooms / Krista Parham6-3, 3-6, 0-1
W#3 DoublesSharon Cash / Sherry Fine vs Vikki Williams / Alice Dorris6-1, 6-4
2021-02-03vs MOValley/Grooms/55&Over9.0WLost 03
L#1 DoublesMary Bursack / Janet Chambers vs Jenny Marcos / Ann Bonadeo1-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesSherry Fine / Mary Fox vs Marcia Hogsett / Kelle Rutz5-7, 6-4, 0-1
L#3 DoublesMelissa Little / Karen Frank vs Laura Grooms / Krista Parham5-7, 1-6
2021-01-31vs MOValley/Grooms/55&Over9.0WLost 12
L#1 DoublesJanet Chambers / Laura Allman vs Laura Grooms / Krista Parham2-6, 6-7
W#2 DoublesJana Brookover / Sharon Anthamatten vs Deborah Coogan / Vikki Williams6-1, 6-4
L#3 DoublesMary Bursack / Amanda Scroggs vs Sandy Roberts / Jenny Marcos4-6, 3-6
2021-01-19vs MOValley/Grooms/55&Over9.0WLost 12
L#1 DoublesMelissa Little / Karen Frank vs Laura Grooms / Krista Parham3-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesSherry Fine / Mary Fox vs Deborah Coogan / Marcia Hogsett6-2, 6-7, 0-1
W#3 DoublesJanet Chambers / Laura Allman vs Sandy Roberts / Jenny Marcos4-6, 6-4, 1-0
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 standings2 teams · 9.0 WOMEN
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1MOValley/Grooms/55&Over9.0W4312922182
2Brookover/IS3491225196

Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.

See the full flight, with every team’s record

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 4.00 estimated across 7 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.

4.22
Sharon Anthamatten
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published
4.18
Amanda Scroggs
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 4.5
4.07
Janet Chambers
usually #1 Doubles 83%, also #3 Doubles 17% · published
4.05
Laura Allman
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
4.02
Sharon Cash
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.93
Sherry Fine
usually #2 Doubles 43%, also #1 Doubles 43% · published
3.55
Ginger Wade
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
Jana Brookover
usually #3 Doubles 43%, also #2 Doubles 43% · published
Karen Frank
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 38% · published
Mary Bursack
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
Mary Fox
usually #2 Doubles 88%, also #3 Doubles 13% · published
Melissa Little
usually #3 Doubles 75%, also #1 Doubles 25% · 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.

Janet Chambers + Laura Allman6356% games+8.3% vs expected
Sharon Anthamatten + Jana Brookover4450% games+6.3% vs expected
Melissa Little + Janet Chambers3257% games+5.4% vs expected
Sherry Fine + Laura Allman8457% games+3.6% vs expected
Sharon Anthamatten + Laura Allman121055% games+1.8% vs expected
Sharon Anthamatten + Sherry Fine5649% games−1.0% vs expected
Sharon Cash + Sherry Fine151850% games−1.5% vs expected
Mary Fox + Amanda Scroggs5354% games−1.7% 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.

Sharon Anthamatten
75W–51L career · 4 lines in 2021
5%94%1%
4.22
4.5
Amanda Scroggs
101W–42L career · 3 lines in 2021
8%91%1%
4.18
Janet Chambers
78W–59L career · 6 lines in 2021
30%70%<1%
4.07
Laura Allman
57W–31L career · 8 lines in 2021
36%64%<1%
4.05
Sharon Cash
52W–57L career · 3 lines in 2021
44%56%<1%
4.02
Sherry Fine
81W–85L career · 7 lines in 2021
72%28%<1%
3.93
4
Ginger Wade
41W–53L career · 2 lines in 2021
36%64%<1%
3.55
Jana Brookover
49W–43L career · 7 lines in 2021
not enough data
Karen Frank
65W–33L career · 8 lines in 2021
not enough data
Mary Bursack
15W–13L career · 4 lines in 2021
not enough data
Mary Fox
35W–29L career · 8 lines in 2021
not enough data
Melissa Little
20W–32L career · 4 lines in 2021
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.