Teams

SC-Boinski

2022 Adult 55 & Over · 6.0 WOMEN

8 players · average NTRP / EASTERN WASHINGTON

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2021-11-07vs YTC-MillerLost 03
L#1 DoublesLaura Temby / Judy Stone vs Angie Richardson / Beata Miller7-6, 5-7, 0-1
L#2 DoublesTerri Dahm / Susan Boinski vs Angela Stewart / Lesley Kerns0-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesJan Hardenbrook / Trudy Jacobsen vs Cindy Bowen-Lorrain / Dana Lybeck6-4, 3-6, 0-1
2021-11-06vs SRC-ChessarWon 10
W#1 DoublesLaura Temby / Judy Stone vs Stephanie Butler / Judy Chessar6-3, 6-1
2021-11-06vs SC-TombariLost 03
L#1 DoublesJan Hardenbrook / Marian Menke vs Voni Tombari / Jeneen Barratt0-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesLaura Temby / Judy Stone vs Linda Heyamoto / Cynthia Duren4-6, 0-6
L#3 DoublesSusan Boinski / Terri Dahm vs Marie Lambert / Nancy Bettesworth5-7, 4-6
2021-11-05vs WRAC-SimmonsLost 12
L#1 DoublesTerri Dahm / Susan Boinski vs Sheryl Jeffries / Kathy Dinwiddie6-7, 7-6, 0-1
W#2 DoublesLaura Temby / Judy Stone vs Kathleen McIver / Amanda Wray6-3, 6-2
L#3 DoublesJan Hardenbrook / Trudy Jacobsen vs Shari Tastad / Julie Stirling1-6, 0-6
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 standings for 6.0 WOMEN 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 2.37 estimated across 1 rated player. 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.

2.37
Susan Boinski
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
Jan Hardenbrook
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
Judy Stone
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
Laura Temby
usually #2 Doubles 40%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published
Marian Menke
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Muriel Blevins
published
Terri Dahm
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
Trudy Jacobsen
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.

Terri Dahm + Susan Boinski42036% games−9.6% vs expected
Laura Temby + Judy Stone123 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.

Susan Boinski
9W–38L career · 4 lines in 2022
83%17%<1%
2.37
Jan Hardenbrook
8W–8L career · 3 lines in 2022
not enough data
Judy Stone
1W–3L career · 3 lines in 2022
not enough data
Laura Temby
78W–51L career · 5 lines in 2022
not enough data
Marian Menke
23W–34L career · 1 line in 2022
not enough data
Muriel Blevins
9W–9L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Terri Dahm
5W–22L career · 3 lines in 2022
not enough data
Trudy Jacobsen
0W–2L career · 2 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.