Teams

New Orleans - Rivas/65/3.5

2022 65 & Over Adult Local At State · 3.5 (65&O) Women Local at State

9 players · average NTRP 3.50 / LOUISIANA

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2024-09-21vs Lafayette - Whaley/65/3.5Split 11
W#1 DoublesMarilyn Foucheaux / Diane Triay vs Polly Strickland / Karen Stelly6-2, 6-3
L#3 DoublesPhyllis Smith / Maureen Nelson vs Aileen Prevost / Kathy Simon0-6, 6-4, 0-1
2024-09-20vs Lafayette - Bordlee/65/3.5Split 11
L#1 DoublesLila Rivas / Lydia Docampo vs Dailene Melancon / Cecelia Roman0-6, 1-6
W#3 DoublesMarilyn Foucheaux / Diane Triay vs Patricia Latch / Diana Chauvin6-3, 6-2
2024-09-20vs Monroe - Cobb/65/3.5Split 11
L#1 DoublesMarilyn Foucheaux / Diane Triay vs Debbie Barthel / Jane Jarrett1-6, 4-6
W#3 DoublesMaureen Nelson / Phyllis Smith vs Cheryl Metzger / Marsha Cobb6-3, 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 3.5 (65&O) Women Local at State 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 3.12 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.

3.33
Diane Triay
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
Cheryl Richards
published 3.5
3.16
Phyllis Smith
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.10
Maureen Nelson
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.05
Lila Rivas
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.98
Nancy Bonifacic
published
Lydia Docampo
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Nancy Scobel
published
Trudi Briede
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.

Phyllis Smith + Maureen Nelson3447% games−0.5% vs expected
Phyllis Smith + Lila Rivas1439% games−3.3% 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.

3.5
Diane Triay
11W–2L career · 3 lines in 2022
1%89%10%
3.33
3.5
Cheryl Richards
3W–2L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Phyllis Smith
24W–26L career · 2 lines in 2022
12%88%<1%
3.16
Maureen Nelson
13W–18L career · 2 lines in 2022
21%79%<1%
3.10
Lila Rivas
15W–26L career · 1 line in 2022
35%65%<1%
3.05
Nancy Bonifacic
4W–5L career · no lines in 2022
56%44%<1%
2.98
Lydia Docampo
7W–12L career · 1 line in 2022
not enough data
Nancy Scobel
1W–1L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Trudi Briede
2W–3L 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.