Teams

Clarke/40/CP

2022 NO Tri Level 40 & Over - Women Day · 4.0,3.5,3.0 NO (40&O) Women Day

21 players · average NTRP 3.70 / LOUISIANA

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 →

Flight standings for 4.0,3.5,3.0 NO (40&O) Women Day 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 3.39 estimated across 16 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.

4.13
Claire Lewis
published 4.5
3.69
Michelle Brinz
published
3.64
Pamela Delaporte
published
3.63
Michelle Wagner
published
3.54
Yvonne Keegan
published
3.50
3.40
Mary Beth Moore
published
3.38
Carrie Berger
published 3.5
3.36
Stacey Bosco
published
3.27
Lorri Murray
published
3.27
Lisa Blount
published
Bridget Lawrence
published 3.5
3.24
Kelley Gill
published
3.22
Michele Spansel
published
3.11
Michelle Osborne
published
3.08
Keri Candies
published
2.85
Mar'Sue Parro
published
Ann Herren
published 3
Lauren Tucker
published
Mary Norriss
published
Suzanne Roy
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.

Michelle Osborne + Michele Spansel4170% games+18.8% vs expected
Mary Beth Moore + Lisa Blount6165% games+12.0% vs expected
Michelle Osborne + Lorri Murray3551% games+11.0% vs expected
Yvonne Keegan + Lorri Murray6167% games+10.8% vs expected
Keri Candies + Stacey Bosco4359% games+9.4% vs expected
Carrie Berger + Lorri Murray3256% games+7.2% vs expected
Stacey Bosco + Michelle Osborne6455% games+6.4% vs expected
Michelle Wagner + Pamela Delaporte8263% games+4.9% 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.

4.5
Claire Lewis
26W–31L career · no lines in 2022
16%84%<1%
4.13
Michelle Brinz
26W–25L career · no lines in 2022
8%91%1%
3.69
Pamela Delaporte
26W–26L career · no lines in 2022
14%86%<1%
3.64
Michelle Wagner
70W–36L career · no lines in 2022
15%84%<1%
3.63
Yvonne Keegan
68W–45L career · no lines in 2022
38%62%<1%
3.54
4
Elizabeth Stirling
41W–43L career · no lines in 2022
50%50%<1%
3.50
Mary Beth Moore
56W–23L career · no lines in 2022
<1%77%23%
3.40
3.5
Carrie Berger
28W–20L career · no lines in 2022
<1%83%17%
3.38
Stacey Bosco
23W–17L career · no lines in 2022
<1%86%13%
3.36
Lorri Murray
47W–35L career · no lines in 2022
2%94%4%
3.27
Lisa Blount
36W–20L career · no lines in 2022
2%94%4%
3.27
3.5
Bridget Lawrence
7W–26L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Kelley Gill
26W–37L career · no lines in 2022
3%94%2%
3.24
Michele Spansel
37W–22L career · no lines in 2022
5%94%1%
3.22
Michelle Osborne
52W–54L career · no lines in 2022
20%80%<1%
3.11
Keri Candies
18W–28L career · no lines in 2022
>99%<1%<1%
3.08
Mar'Sue Parro
25W–18L career · no lines in 2022
<1%86%13%
2.85
3
Ann Herren
6W–21L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Lauren Tucker
0W–2L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Mary Norriss
19W–21L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Suzanne Roy
15W–4L 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.