Teams

MCAC:Hoagland:Hoagland

2024 Cape Adult 70 & Over Women · 7.0 Women Flt 1

11 players · average NTRP 3.00 / EASTERN MASSACHUSETTS

View scouting list →
Schedule7 played
2024-05-23vs MCAC:White:White/MettaLost 12
L#1 DoublesNetty Hoagland / Joyce Taber vs Marjorie White / Mary Catherine Garry3-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesJeannette Cooper / Mary Sullivan vs Tina Leardi / Emily Kissell3-6, 6-5, 0-1
W#3 DoublesJudie Garcia / Anne Marquardt vs Patricia Cronin / Maureen Metta6-3, 6-2
2024-05-16vs MCAC:White:White/MettaLost 03
L#1 DoublesMary Sullivan / Joyce Taber vs Kim Sullivan / Mary Catherine Garry3-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesBetty Ann Davis / Audrey Gandini vs Patricia Cronin / Maureen Manning6-2, 4-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesJeannette Cooper / Rosanne Panio vs Susan Dean / Tina Leardi3-6, 5-6
2024-05-09vs MCAC:White:White/MettaWon 21
L#1 DoublesJoyce Taber / Mary Sullivan vs Maureen Manning / Emily Kissell5-7, 4-3, 0-1
W#2 DoublesBetty Ann Davis / Judie Garcia vs Maureen Metta / Marjorie White6-3, 6-3
W#3 DoublesElaine Brennan / Rosanne Panio vs Barbara Levison / Barbara Lemperly Grant7-5, 5-3
2024-05-02vs MCAC:White:White/MettaLost 03
L#1 DoublesJoyce Taber / Mary Ellen Mastromatteo vs Marjorie White / Emily Kissell3-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesJudie Garcia / Kathleen Mingle vs Kim Sullivan / Mary Catherine Garry1-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesElaine Brennan / Jeannette Cooper vs Patricia Cronin / Maureen Manning0-6, 3-6
2024-04-25vs MCAC:White:White/MettaLost 12
L#1 DoublesAudrey Gandini / Joyce Taber vs Kim Sullivan / Mary Catherine Garry2-6, 4-6
L#2 DoublesElaine Brennan / Judie Garcia vs Susan Dean / Marjorie White3-6, 3-6
W#3 DoublesRosanne Panio / Kathleen Mingle vs Barbara Levison / Barbara Lemperly Grant6-0, 1-6, 1-0
2024-04-18vs MCAC:White:White/MettaLost 03
L#1 DoublesMary Sullivan / Joyce Taber vs Marjorie White / Emily Kissell3-6, 4-5
L#2 DoublesMary Ellen Mastromatteo / Elaine Brennan vs Mary Catherine Garry / Kim Sullivan3-6, 0-6
L#3 DoublesAnne Marquardt / Jeannette Cooper vs Susan Dean / Tina Leardi3-6, 4-6
2024-04-11vs MCAC:White:White/MettaWon 21
L#1 DoublesAudrey Gandini / Mary Sullivan vs Kim Sullivan / Mary Catherine Garry1-6, 4-6
W#2 DoublesBetty Ann Davis / Judie Garcia vs Maureen Metta / Susan Dean6-2, 6-4
W#3 DoublesElaine Brennan / Kathleen Mingle vs Patricia Cronin / Tina Leardi3-6, 6-3, 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 standings2 teams · 7.0 Women Flt 1
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1MCAC:White:White/Metta5215615155
2MCAC:Hoagland:Hoagland2561532215

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 3.03 estimated across 4 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.

3.14
Joyce Taber
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.14
Audrey Gandini
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3
3.09
2.75
Netty Hoagland
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Elaine Brennan
usually #3 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published
Jeannette Cooper
usually #3 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
Judie Garcia
usually #2 Doubles 80%, also #3 Doubles 20% · published
Kathleen Mingle
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
Mary Ellen Mastromatteo
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
Mary Sullivan
usually #1 Doubles 80%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published
Rosanne Panio
usually #3 Doubles 100% · 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.

Jeannette Cooper + Joyce Taber131351% games−5.3% vs expected
Kathleen Mingle + Elaine Brennan232051% gamesnot enough data
Elaine Brennan + Netty Hoagland8357% gamesnot enough data
Audrey Gandini + Jeannette Cooper5360% gamesnot enough data
Kathleen Mingle + Judie Garcia5351% gamesnot enough data
Jeannette Cooper + Elaine Brennan1539% gamesnot enough data
Jeannette Cooper + Netty Hoagland224 matchesnot enough data
Joyce Taber + Netty Hoagland044 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.

Joyce Taber
146W–137L career · 6 lines in 2024
16%84%1%
3.14
3
Audrey Gandini
60W–85L career · 3 lines in 2024
<1%17%83%
3.14
Marnie Crawford Samuelson
4W–8L career · no lines in 2024
25%74%<1%
3.09
Netty Hoagland
32W–71L career · 1 line in 2024
96%4%<1%
2.75
Elaine Brennan
54W–77L career · 5 lines in 2024
not enough data
Jeannette Cooper
58W–68L career · 4 lines in 2024
not enough data
Judie Garcia
21W–20L career · 5 lines in 2024
not enough data
Kathleen Mingle
41W–41L career · 3 lines in 2024
not enough data
Mary Ellen Mastromatteo
16W–10L career · 2 lines in 2024
not enough data
Mary Sullivan
0W–5L career · 5 lines in 2024
not enough data
Rosanne Panio
24W–54L career · 3 lines in 2024
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.