Teams

LTC:Love Hurts:Roux

2022 WMA Adult 55 & Over Women · 6.0 Women 1

10 players · average NTRP 3.00 / WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS

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 →
Schedule9 played
2022-06-26vs ETC:Tennis Buddies:Zaleski/WyzgaWon 20
W#1 DoublesTina Kingston / Helena Paez vs Beverly Paige / Marcy Larmon6-3, 6-1
W#2 DoublesNancy Roux / Debbie Santos vs Laurie Fede / Catherine Jahne7-6, 6-1
2022-06-12vs LTC:Seniorellas:HunterWon 21
W#1 DoublesTina Kingston / Helena Paez vs Cindy Haddock / Wendy Bowers6-2, 6-3
W#2 DoublesNancy Roux / Catherine Wickens vs Gail Mathes / Susan Sturgeon6-1, 4-6, 1-0
L#3 DoublesLee Herbert / Elaine Pourinski vs Lynn Croteau / Sue Boyea3-6, 1-6
2022-05-14vs LTC:High Court:Eisenberg/PremoWon 30
W#1 DoublesDebbie Santos / Tina Kingston vs Bonnie Allen / Wendy Hammerle6-3, 6-3
W#2 DoublesCatherine Wickens / Eileen Jordan vs Jane Mellor / Claire Premo6-1, 6-4
W#3 DoublesDenise Goebel / Maria Goncalves vs Fran Eisenberg / Christine Kostek6-1, 2-6, 1-0
2022-05-01vs ETC:Tennis Buddies:Zaleski/WyzgaWon 20
W#1 DoublesTina Kingston / Helena Paez vs Beverly Paige / Nancy Wyzga6-2, 6-1
W#2 DoublesLee Herbert / Eileen Jordan vs Annette Scheidecker / Sharon Ofori6-2, 6-1
2022-04-09vs LTC:Seniorellas:HunterSplit 11
L#1 DoublesTina Kingston / Debbie Santos vs Cindy Haddock / Wendy Bowers4-6, 3-6
W#3 DoublesLee Herbert / Elaine Pourinski vs Amy Hunter / Christine Evans7-5, 7-6
2022-04-02vs LTC:High Court:Eisenberg/PremoWon 30
W#1 DoublesDenise Goebel / Nancy Roux vs Jane Mellor / Wendy Hammerle6-7, 5-3, 1-0
W#2 DoublesDebbie Santos / Tina Kingston vs Claire Premo / Fran Eisenberg6-2, 6-1
W#3 DoublesElaine Pourinski / Erin Doyle-Gallerani vs Molly Hale / Eva Howard6-3, 7-5
2022-03-20vs ETC:Tennis Buddies:Zaleski/WyzgaWon 20
W#1 DoublesTina Kingston / Helena Paez vs Susan Goldsmith / Robyn Sondak6-3, 6-1
W#2 DoublesDenise Goebel / Linda Terrinca vs Sharon Ofori / Annette Scheidecker6-4, 6-4
2022-03-13vs LTC:Seniorellas:HunterWon 20
W#2 DoublesNancy Roux / Catherine Wickens vs Amy Hunter / Susan Sturgeon7-6, 6-2
W#3 DoublesEileen Jordan / Linda Terrinca vs Kathleen Bernardin / Linda Kenyon7-5, 6-3
2022-02-27vs LTC:High Court:Eisenberg/PremoLost 12
W#1 DoublesHelena Paez / Tina Kingston vs Bonnie Allen / Wendy Hammerle7-5, 6-4
L#2 DoublesDenise Goebel / Janet Chornyak vs Fran Eisenberg / Jane Mellor3-6, 6-4, 1-0
L#3 DoublesLee Herbert / Marcella Burstein vs Molly Hale / Sara Sherry2-6, 2-6
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 standings4 teams · 6.0 Women 1
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1LTC:Love Hurts:Roux7222514184
2LTC:Seniorellas:Hunter7219819208
3LTC:High Court:Eisenberg/Premo45111636260
4ETC:Tennis Buddies:Zaleski/Wyzga0922551315

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 2.80 estimated across 7 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.

2.88
Linda Terrinca
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
2.87
Nancy Roux
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published
2.84
Helena Paez
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.83
Catherine Wickens
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.76
Tina Kingston
usually #1 Doubles 88%, also #2 Doubles 13% · published
Denise Goebel
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 3
2.71
Eileen Jordan
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.70
Debbie Santos
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 3
Elaine Pourinski
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Lee Herbert
usually #3 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · 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.

Helena Paez + Tina Kingston9074% games+20.3% vs expected
Debbie Santos + Tina Kingston4169% games+13.8% vs expected
Eileen Jordan + Catherine Wickens7159% games+6.1% vs expected
Linda Terrinca + Debbie Santos6262% games+3.4% vs expected
Linda Terrinca + Catherine Wickens4551% games+2.3% vs expected
Nancy Roux + Catherine Wickens10258% games+0.9% vs expected
Debbie Santos + Nancy Roux111050% games+0.5% vs expected
Nancy Roux + Tina Kingston191254% games−1.6% 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.

Linda Terrinca
56W–68L career · 2 lines in 2022
<1%82%18%
2.88
Nancy Roux
109W–78L career · 4 lines in 2022
<1%85%15%
2.87
3
Helena Paez
62W–43L career · 5 lines in 2022
<1%88%11%
2.84
3
Catherine Wickens
71W–59L career · 3 lines in 2022
1%90%9%
2.83
Tina Kingston
55W–36L career · 8 lines in 2022
2%95%3%
2.76
3
Denise Goebel
20W–14L career · 4 lines in 2022
not enough data
3
Eileen Jordan
60W–68L career · 3 lines in 2022
5%93%1%
2.71
3
Debbie Santos
66W–48L career · 4 lines in 2022
6%93%1%
2.70
Elaine Pourinski
5W–12L career · 3 lines in 2022
not enough data
Lee Herbert
21W–27L career · 4 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.