Teams

Michelsen & Reinsch: QCTC

2025 IA 40 & Over Adult League · 3.5 Women

16 players · average NTRP 3.45 / IOWA

View scouting list →
Schedule8 played
2025-01-11vs Bemus & McKinstry: SmithfieldWon 21
W#1 DoublesAna Michelsen / Diane Reinsch vs Amy Blades / Sarah Hemming-Meyer6-3, 7-5
W#2 DoublesCindy Quinby / Julie Pausch vs Carol Renz / Elizabeth Ekberg6-0, 6-4
L#3 DoublesCynthia Weeks / Elizabeth Tanner vs Yara Conway / Erin Langdon5-7, 3-6
2025-01-04vs Cobb & Trovas: ElmcrestWon 31
W#1 DoublesCheryl VandeVoorde / Ana Michelsen vs Jodi Cobb / Donna Lynch6-2, 6-3
W#2 DoublesMary Thulen / Fiona Briggs vs Caren Wasta / Cheryl Patten7-6, 3-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesCindy Quinby / Ellen Scott vs Karen Thinnes / April Bunney6-3, 6-0
L#4 DoublesDiane Reinsch / Elisabeth Norwood vs Debra Callahan / Holly Ervin3-6, 6-4, 1-0
2024-11-23vs Bradley & Heffernan: HTRCLost 14
L#1 DoublesAmanda Ramirez / Cynthia Weeks vs Karen Casavant / Vicki Betts0-6, 0-6
L#1 SinglesEllen Scott vs Ana Lira4-6, 6-4, 0-1
L#2 DoublesRose Hoenig / Fiona Briggs vs Diane Norris / Hillary Johnson-Jahangir2-6, 3-6
W#3 DoublesAna Michelsen / Julie Pausch vs Mary Milavetz / Robin Sueppel6-3, 4-6, 1-0
L#4 DoublesDiane Reinsch / Mary Thulen vs Tracy Speraw / Patricia Conrad6-4, 1-6, 0-1
2024-11-16vs Kemmerer & Novak: SmithfieldLost 23
L#1 DoublesJulie Pausch / Elizabeth Tanner vs Janalee Kosowski / Bonnie Hinrichs3-6, 6-3, 0-1
W#1 SinglesAna Michelsen vs Jennifer Kemmerer6-0, 6-1
L#2 DoublesMichelle Goy / Rose Hoenig vs JENNIFER HEBERT / Michelle Novak3-6, 5-7
L#3 DoublesDiane Reinsch / Amanda Ramirez vs Kelly Loeffelholz / Paula Levett2-6, 1-6
W#4 DoublesCindy Quinby / Piper Manatt vs Sorina Abernathey / Lois Blankenship6-3, 6-0
2024-11-02vs Cobb & Trovas: ElmcrestLost 04
L#1 DoublesCynthia Weeks / Julie Pausch vs Jodi Cobb / Kristen Trovas1-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesRose Hoenig / Fiona Briggs vs Nancy Netolicky / Julie Golding2-6, 6-4, 0-1
L#3 DoublesDiane Reinsch / Mary Thulen vs Debra Callahan / Shari Konarske4-6, 1-6
L#4 DoublesMichelle Goy / Piper Manatt vs Caren Wasta / Carrie Corbett7-6, 3-6, 0-1
2024-10-19vs Bemus & McKinstry: SmithfieldWon 30
W#1 DoublesCheryl VandeVoorde / Ana Michelsen vs Ann McKinstry / Lori Caldwell6-1, 6-1
W#2 DoublesCindy Quinby / Julie Pausch vs Sarah Hemming-Meyer / Kara Heying6-2, 4-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesCynthia Weeks / Elisabeth Norwood vs Amy Bemus / Amy Blades7-5, 6-4
2024-10-12vs Kemmerer & Novak: SmithfieldWon 32
W#1 DoublesMary Thulen / Ana Michelsen vs Heather Sundermann / Stephanie Mehmen6-1, 7-5
W#1 SinglesEllen Scott vs Kristi Whitham5-7, 6-0, 1-0
L#2 DoublesJennifer Chen / Michelle Goy vs Kelly Loeffelholz / Jennifer Kemmerer2-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesCynthia Weeks / Amanda Ramirez vs Janalee Kosowski / Lois Blankenship1-6, 3-6
W#4 DoublesRose Hoenig / Fiona Briggs vs Paula Levett / Andrea Norris6-3, 6-0
2024-09-28vs Bradley & Heffernan: HTRCLost 23
W#1 DoublesCheryl VandeVoorde / Ana Michelsen vs Karen Casavant / Hillary Johnson-Jahangir6-3, 6-2
L#1 SinglesElizabeth Tanner vs Catherine Bradley2-6, 2-6
W#2 DoublesElisabeth Norwood / Rose Hoenig vs Elizabeth Hooley / Kathryn Duethman3-6, 7-6, 1-0
L#3 DoublesJulie Pausch / Cindy Quinby vs Germaine Hagarty / Wendy Comellas3-6, 0-6
L#4 DoublesAmanda Ramirez / Mary Thulen vs Junying Lei / Kelly Drake6-3, 2-6, 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 standings10 teams · 3.5 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1IA/Snedegar/Hagan/40&Over3.5W71281228289
2Bradley & Heffernan: HTRC71271334270
3Zinn-Burggraaf & Olafson: DMGCC62251536330
4Michelsen & Reinsch: QCTC44221841306
5Cownie & Whipp: Lifetime44211942349
6Kemmerer & Novak: Smithfield44192146356
7Cobb & Trovas: Elmcrest35192151385
8Bangtson & Beebe: Lifetime26182251395
9Bemus & McKinstry: Smithfield26132761396
10Sissel: Genesis1783266435

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 3.16 estimated across 10 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.

3.95
Ana Michelsen
usually #1 Doubles 63%, also #1 Singles 25% · published 4
3.52
Cheryl VandeVoorde
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.27
Cindy Quinby
usually #3 Doubles 40%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published 3.5
Elizabeth Tanner
usually #1 Singles 33%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
Fiona Briggs
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #4 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.16
Mary Thulen
usually #4 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 17% · published
3.08
Julie Pausch
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.04
Ellen Scott
usually #1 Singles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.01
Diane Reinsch
usually #4 Doubles 40%, also #3 Doubles 40% · published 3
2.98
Amanda Ramirez
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #4 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
2.88
Elisabeth Norwood
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #4 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
2.71
Cynthia Weeks
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3
Jennifer Chen
published
Michelle Goy
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #4 Doubles 33% · published
Piper Manatt
usually #4 Doubles 100% · published
Rose Hoenig
usually #2 Doubles 80%, also #4 Doubles 20% · 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.

Ana Michelsen + Cheryl VandeVoorde6165% games+11.2% vs expected
Cindy Quinby + Julie Pausch6254% games+6.7% vs expected
Diane Reinsch + Elisabeth Norwood5453% games+3.3% vs expected
Julie Pausch + Cynthia Weeks0527% games−20.1% vs expected
Cynthia Weeks + Elisabeth Norwood1528% games−20.2% vs expected
Ellen Scott + Cheryl VandeVoorde314 matchesnot enough data
Cindy Quinby + Mary Thulen123 matchesnot enough data
Julie Pausch + Elisabeth Norwood033 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.

4
Ana Michelsen
35W–9L career · 8 lines in 2025
<1%65%35%
3.95
3.5
Cheryl VandeVoorde
66W–37L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%43%57%
3.52
3.5
Cindy Quinby
14W–9L career · 5 lines in 2025
2%94%4%
3.27
3.5
Elizabeth Tanner
1W–9L career · 3 lines in 2025
not enough data
3.5
Fiona Briggs
3W–2L career · 4 lines in 2025
not enough data
Mary Thulen
12W–19L career · 6 lines in 2025
10%89%<1%
3.16
Julie Pausch
11W–26L career · 6 lines in 2025
28%72%<1%
3.08
3.5
Ellen Scott
5W–8L career · 3 lines in 2025
38%62%<1%
3.04
3
Diane Reinsch
12W–12L career · 5 lines in 2025
<1%46%54%
3.01
3.5
Amanda Ramirez
0W–10L career · 4 lines in 2025
57%43%<1%
2.98
3.5
Elisabeth Norwood
12W–31L career · 4 lines in 2025
82%18%<1%
2.88
3
Cynthia Weeks
6W–31L career · 6 lines in 2025
5%94%1%
2.71
Jennifer Chen
2W–6L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Michelle Goy
0W–3L career · 3 lines in 2025
not enough data
Piper Manatt
2W–4L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Rose Hoenig
2W–6L career · 5 lines in 2025
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.