Teams

Chassee/55's/3.5/SC Day

2026 Man · Cov Adult 55 & Over - Women Day

9 players · average NTRP 3.30 / LOUISIANA

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2026-03-24Lost 01
L#3 DoublesPaula Davis / Jolie McCaleb vs Ann Boucher / Pamela Owen5-7, 2-6
2026-03-10Won 10
W#1 DoublesJolie McCaleb / Kim Osborn vs Suzanne Allison / Linda Goudeau6-1, 5-7, 1-0
2026-02-19Won 10
W#2 DoublesJolie McCaleb / Kim Osborn vs Suzanne Allison / Jennifer Harris6-2, 6-1
2026-02-10Won 10
W#1 DoublesKim Osborn / Jolie McCaleb vs Paula Stein / Ann Boucher1-6, 6-3, 1-0
2026-01-20Won 10
W#2 DoublesJolie McCaleb / Kim Osborn vs Sally Namie / Tessy Ajubita6-3, 6-1
2026-01-13Won 10
W#1 DoublesKim Osborn / Jolie McCaleb vs Karen Tracey / Hope Himel6-0, 6-1
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 standings5 teams · Cov Adult 55 & Over - Women Day
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Chassee/55's/3.5/SC Day8021313171
2Eckholdt/55's/3.5/FAC Day53121229221
3Ricalde/55's/3.5/PAC Day4415921176
4Morris/55's/3.5/SC Day3591535246
5Tracey/55's/3.5/NC Day0832142260

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 3.14 estimated across 5 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.

3.35
Carolyn Chassee
usually #2 Doubles 36%, also #1 Doubles 27% · published 3.5
3.25
Allyson Davis
usually #2 Doubles 54%, also #3 Doubles 23% · published 3.5
3.23
Cherie Verdigets
usually #3 Doubles 44%, also #1 Doubles 31% · published 3.5
2.95
Alison Beebe
usually #2 Doubles 46%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published 3
2.92
Cathy West
usually #2 Doubles 36%, also #1 Doubles 36% · published 3
Jamie McWilliams
usually #1 Doubles 37%, also #2 Doubles 37% · published
Jolie McCaleb
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
Kim Osborn
usually #1 Doubles 68%, also #3 Doubles 16% · published
Yvette Favret
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · 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.

Cherie Verdigets + Allyson Davis6159% gamesnot enough data
Jolie McCaleb + Kim Osborn5069% gamesnot enough data
Carolyn Chassee + Jamie McWilliams213 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.

3.5
Carolyn Chassee
12W–2L career · 11 lines in 2026
1%86%13%
3.35
3.5
Allyson Davis
15W–8L career · 13 lines in 2026
4%93%4%
3.25
3.5
Cherie Verdigets
13W–8L career · 16 lines in 2026
5%92%3%
3.23
3
Alison Beebe
54W–27L career · 35 lines in 2026
<1%65%35%
2.95
3
Cathy West
37W–25L career · 36 lines in 2026
<1%72%28%
2.92
Jamie McWilliams
29W–17L career · 27 lines in 2026
not enough data
Jolie McCaleb
5W–1L career · 6 lines in 2026
not enough data
Kim Osborn
23W–21L career · 19 lines in 2026
not enough data
Yvette Favret
5W–5L career · 4 lines in 2026
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.