Teams

Ferguson /Oxford 55+ 4.0 - Oxford - FNC

2023 Adult 55 & Over-EC · Women 4.0

10 players · average NTRP 3.50 / MISSISSIPPI

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2023-04-18vs Swedenburg 55+ 4.0 - Columbus - MTCSplit 11
L#1 DoublesMichele McCay / Susan Watson vs Mary Swedenburg / Cherie Ivey1-6, 2-6
W#2 DoublesMarylyle Boolos / Mary Leary vs Jennifer Falkner / Janice Reynolds6-1, 6-2
W#1 DoublesMichele McCay / Susan Watson vs Mary Swedenburg / Cherie Ivey7-6, 7-6
W#2 DoublesMarylyle Boolos / Mary Leary vs Jennifer Falkner / Janice Reynolds6-1, 6-1
L#1 DoublesVicki Ferguson / Marylyle Boolos vs Kim Cadenhead / Kim Prestridge6-7, 6-7
L#2 DoublesCharlotte Parks / Cecilia Gold vs Cherie Ivey / Janice Reynolds6-7, 4-6
L#3 DoublesFran Adams / Kathie Cavette vs Karen Vickers / Jennifer Falkner2-2
L#1 DoublesVicki Ferguson / Marylyle Boolos vs Kim Cadenhead / Kim Prestridge5-7, 4-6
L#2 DoublesCecilia Gold / Charlotte Parks vs Cherie Ivey / Janice Reynolds3-6, 4-6
W#3 DoublesFran Adams / Kathie Cavette vs Jennifer Falkner / Karen Vickers6-1, 6-1
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 Women 4.0 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 3.43 estimated across 3 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.

3.91
Michele McCay
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.28
Vicki Ferguson
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Cecilia Gold
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
Charlotte Parks
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.10
Paula Akers
published
Fran Adams
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Kathie Cavette
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Mary Leary
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Marylyle Boolos
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
Semmes van Brocklin
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.

Cecilia Gold + Charlotte Parks1444% gamesnot enough data
Marylyle Boolos + Vicki Ferguson044 matchesnot enough data
Kathie Cavette + Marylyle Boolos123 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.

Michele McCay
15W–6L career · 2 lines in 2023
<1%75%24%
3.91
Vicki Ferguson
5W–29L career · 2 lines in 2023
95%5%<1%
3.28
3.5
Cecilia Gold
4W–6L career · 2 lines in 2023
not enough data
3.5
Charlotte Parks
1W–7L career · 2 lines in 2023
not enough data
Paula Akers
4W–12L career · no lines in 2023
22%78%<1%
3.10
Fran Adams
1W–1L career · 2 lines in 2023
not enough data
Kathie Cavette
2W–7L career · 2 lines in 2023
not enough data
Mary Leary
4W–3L career · 2 lines in 2023
not enough data
Marylyle Boolos
5W–8L career · 4 lines in 2023
not enough data
Semmes van Brocklin
0W–8L 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.