Teams

Eastern/Partelow/65&Over7.0W

2025 65&Over Women · 7.0

12 players · average NTRP 3.50 / WESTERN REGION

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
2025-09-04Won 10
W#2 DoublesNeerja Bhatnagar / Kathleen Metcalf vs Joanne Parkes / Carol Ryan6-0, 6-0
2025-09-02Won 10
W#3 DoublesNeerja Bhatnagar / Susan Ronsvalle vs Joanne Parkes / Carol Ryan6-0, 6-1
2025-08-23Won 10
W#3 DoublesNeerja Bhatnagar / Susan Ronsvalle vs Joanne Parkes / Carol Ryan6-2, 6-2
2025-07-31vs YablonskiWon 21
W#1 DoublesJoanne Parkes / Sandra Couture vs Tina Nabinger / Patricia McClary6-4, 6-1
L#2 DoublesNeerja Bhatnagar / Diana Kurty vs Robyn Wishna / Shirley Yablonski7-5, 3-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesCaroline Burton / Karen Keegan vs Cynthia Ciarpelli / Deborah Severino6-3, 6-4
2025-07-24vs RadoffWon 21
L#1 DoublesNeerja Bhatnagar / Diana Kurty vs Maureen Anderson / Melody Fredrickson3-6, 6-4, 1-0
W#2 DoublesJoanne Parkes / Carol Eisenman vs Joanne Engelhardt / Elizabeth Hill6-1, 6-2
W#3 DoublesDawn Deperrior / Linda Partelow vs N/A6-0, 6-0
2025-07-10vs YablonskiWon 21
W#1 DoublesJoanne Parkes / Deborah Hunt vs Kathleen Jordan / Tina Nabinger6-2, 6-1
L#2 DoublesLinda Partelow / Caroline Burton vs Patricia McClary / Robyn Wishna6-7, 6-7
W#3 DoublesArlene Monte / Sandra Couture vs Susan Cole / Cynthia Ciarpelli2-6, 6-2, 1-0
2025-06-26vs RadoffWon 30
W#1 DoublesNeerja Bhatnagar / Caroline Burton vs Melody Fredrickson / Maureen Anderson6-7, 6-4, 1-0
W#2 DoublesVictoria Briggs / Carol Eisenman vs MARCY DEMBS / Jane Podkaminer6-2, 6-1
W#3 DoublesDawn Deperrior / Arlene Monte vs Ruth Sikora / Elizabeth Hill6-3, 6-3
2025-06-12vs YablonskiWon 30
W#1 DoublesCaroline Burton / Neerja Bhatnagar vs Patricia McClary / Shirley Yablonski6-0, 6-3
W#2 DoublesDeborah Hunt / Victoria Briggs vs Kathleen Jordan / Susan Cole5-7, 6-1, 1-0
W#3 DoublesArlene Monte / Joanne Parkes vs Lynn Cifonelli / Deborah Severino6-3, 6-4
2025-06-05vs RadoffWon 30
W#1 DoublesVictoria Briggs / Carol Eisenman vs Nancy Radoff / Jane Podkaminer6-2, 6-0
W#2 DoublesNeerja Bhatnagar / Linda Partelow vs Gwenn Judge / Ruth Sikora6-4, 6-4
W#3 DoublesArlene Monte / Sandra Couture vs Maureen Anderson / Elizabeth Hill6-2, 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 standings3 teams · 7.0
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Eastern/Partelow/65&Over7.0W601539113
2Yablonski2471125183
3Radoff1551328188

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 3.32 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.

3.48
Joanne Parkes
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
3.45
Neerja Bhatnagar
usually #2 Doubles 38%, also #1 Doubles 38% · published 3.5
3.42
Deborah Hunt
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.30
Arlene Monte
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
Diana Kurty
published 3.5
3.24
Caroline Burton
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.22
Carol Eisenman
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.11
Dawn Deperrior
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
Karen Keegan
published
Linda Partelow
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Sandra Couture
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
Victoria Briggs
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · 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.

Caroline Burton + Joanne Parkes3253% games+5.5% vs expected
Neerja Bhatnagar + Caroline Burton6355% games−1.5% vs expected
Sandra Couture + Arlene Monte10357% gamesnot enough data
Linda Partelow + Caroline Burton4454% gamesnot enough data
Victoria Briggs + Carol Eisenman7068% gamesnot enough data
Neerja Bhatnagar + Joanne Parkes0622% gamesnot enough data
Arlene Monte + Caroline Burton5158% gamesnot enough data
Sandra Couture + Joanne Parkes3250% 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.

Joanne Parkes
34W–44L career · 4 lines in 2025
55%45%<1%
3.48
3.5
Neerja Bhatnagar
112W–64L career · 8 lines in 2025
<1%65%35%
3.45
3.5
Deborah Hunt
11W–6L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%71%29%
3.42
3.5
Arlene Monte
36W–25L career · 4 lines in 2025
2%91%8%
3.30
3.5
Diana Kurty
0W–2L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
3.5
Caroline Burton
85W–57L career · 4 lines in 2025
5%92%3%
3.24
3.5
Carol Eisenman
114W–88L career · 3 lines in 2025
6%92%2%
3.22
3.5
Dawn Deperrior
23W–39L career · 2 lines in 2025
21%78%<1%
3.11
Karen Keegan
2W–0L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Linda Partelow
10W–10L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Sandra Couture
32W–40L career · 3 lines in 2025
not enough data
Victoria Briggs
27W–13L career · 3 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.