Teams

1-EKnight-CP

2023 Eno River Adult 65 & Over · 65 & Over Adult 3.0 Women Day

11 players · average NTRP 2.86 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2023-04-13vs 2-DWebb-CHCC-65Won 10
W#1 DoublesKati Ray / Hanna Sturgis vs Cheryl Symons / Judi Seagroves6-4, 6-0
2023-04-06vs 2-DWebb-CHCC-65Lost 02
L#1 DoublesJane Hoffman / Kati Ray vs Pam Matheson / Anne Brady4-6, 7-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesNancy Bennett / Terri Levine vs Dorene Palermo / Pamela Hobson3-6, 3-6
2023-03-30vs 2-DWebb-CHCC-65Split 11
L#1 DoublesNancy Bennett / Terri Levine vs Anne Brady / Beverly Fedewa0-6, 1-6
W#2 DoublesJane Hoffman / Alice Stenstrom vs Helen Youngblood / Pamela Hobson6-4, 6-1
2023-03-23vs 2-DWebb-CHCC-65Won 20
W#1 DoublesJudy Croan / Michele Raymond Dolitka vs Carolyn Hightower / Cheryl Symons6-3, 6-0
W#2 DoublesJane Hoffman / Alice Stenstrom vs Janice Clayton / Pamela Hobson6-4, 6-2
2023-03-16vs 2-DWebb-CHCC-65Won 20
W#1 DoublesJane Hoffman / Hanna Sturgis vs Janice Clayton / Beverly Fedewa3-6, 6-1, 1-0
W#3 DoublesPamela Schoenfeld / Alice Stenstrom vs Dorene Palermo / Helen Youngblood6-1, 6-0
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 standings for 65 & Over Adult 3.0 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 2.92 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.

3.28
Pamela Schoenfeld
published
3.21
Shuqin Liang
published
3.06
3.03
Jane Hoffman
published
2.98
Hanna Sturgis
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.90
Kati Ray
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.86
Judy Croan
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.83
Alice Stenstrom
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.65
Edgar Knight
published
2.41
Terri Levine
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 2.5
Betty Goldband
published 2.5
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.

Hanna Sturgis + Kati Ray6256% 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.

Pamela Schoenfeld
9W–6L career · no lines in 2023
2%92%6%
3.28
Shuqin Liang
9W–7L career · no lines in 2023
6%92%2%
3.21
3
Claire Blackwelder
24W–7L career · type A · no lines in 2023
<1%34%66%
3.06
Jane Hoffman
0W–3L career · no lines in 2023
42%58%<1%
3.03
3
Hanna Sturgis
81W–64L career · 2 lines in 2023
<1%56%44%
2.98
3
Kati Ray
76W–81L career · 2 lines in 2023
<1%75%25%
2.90
3
Judy Croan
49W–54L career · 1 line in 2023
<1%83%16%
2.86
3
Alice Stenstrom
55W–45L career · 3 lines in 2023
1%87%12%
2.83
Edgar Knight
3W–1L career · no lines in 2023
15%84%1%
2.65
2.5
Terri Levine
75W–87L career · 2 lines in 2023
0%74%26%
2.41
2.5
Betty Goldband
1W–1L career · no lines in 2023
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.