Teams

Shott

2022 Montgomery Adult 55 & Over Spring · Montgomery Adult 55 & Over 9.0 Women

11 players · average NTRP 4.25 / MARYLAND

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2022-06-26vs BadacesWon 10
W#1 DoublesMichele Krisanda / Michele Davis vs Kim Miller / Catherine White7-6, 6-1
2022-06-22vs BadacesWon 10
W#1 DoublesMichele Krisanda / Teresa Nyberg-Grim vs Kathryn Rigney / Mary Ann Wagner3-6, 6-3, 1-0
2022-06-08vs BadacesLost 01
L#1 DoublesTeresa Nyberg-Grim / Michele Krisanda vs Kathryn Rigney / Catherine White3-6, 3-6
2022-05-25vs BadacesSplit 11
L#1 DoublesTeresa Nyberg-Grim / Mary Olson vs Valerie Henderson / Allison Lebo4-6, 4-6
W#2 DoublesMichele Krisanda / Laura Mitchell vs Kelly Domson / Debbie Cafferty6-2, 7-5
2022-05-12vs BadacesWon 10
W#2 DoublesTeresa Nyberg-Grim / Mary Olson vs Catherine White / Sol Lopez6-4, 6-2
2022-04-28vs BadacesLost 01
L#1 DoublesLoretta Sevier / Teresa Nyberg-Grim vs Kim Miller / Catherine White3-6, 3-6
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 Montgomery Adult 55 & Over 9.0 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 4.10 estimated across 6 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.

Ann Grubbs
published 4.5
4.21
Tatyana Ayaroglu
published
4.17
Michele Krisanda
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
4.16
Loretta Sevier
published
4.15
Michele Davis
published
4.04
Teresa Nyberg-Grim
usually #1 Doubles 80%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published 4.5
3.89
Nancy Colleton
published 4
Cindy Zettersten
published 4
Jennifer Duncan
published
Laura Smith
published
Leslie Norwalk
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.

Michele Krisanda + Teresa Nyberg-Grim4251% gamesnot 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.

4.5
Ann Grubbs
2W–1L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Tatyana Ayaroglu
4W–2L career · no lines in 2022
6%93%1%
4.21
Michele Krisanda
145W–63L career · 4 lines in 2022
9%90%1%
4.17
Loretta Sevier
20W–10L career · no lines in 2022
12%88%<1%
4.16
Michele Davis
28W–24L career · no lines in 2022
12%88%<1%
4.15
4.5
Teresa Nyberg-Grim
87W–61L career · 5 lines in 2022
38%62%<1%
4.04
4
Nancy Colleton
33W–37L career · no lines in 2022
<1%80%20%
3.89
4
Cindy Zettersten
4W–0L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Jennifer Duncan
14W–11L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Laura Smith
1W–1L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Leslie Norwalk
0W–1L career · no 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.