Teams

Team 2

2022 Adult 65 and Over League · 9.0 Women

10 players · average NTRP 3.80 / WEST HAWAII

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2022-10-14vs Hawaii/Haughney/65&Over9.0WSplit 11
W#1 DoublesDeborah Dorenzo / Leslie Haughney vs Leslie Wilshusen / Diane Chaves6-1, 6-4
L#3 DoublesMarsha Speck / Laurie Jo Rogers vs Liane Depontes / Fletcher Olson2-6, 6-4, 0-1
2022-10-04vs Hawaii/Haughney/65&Over9.0WLost 01
L#3 DoublesAlice Shingle / Laurie Jo Rogers vs Liane Depontes / Judith Jennet4-6, 2-6
2022-09-30vs Hawaii/Haughney/65&Over9.0WSplit 11
W#2 DoublesLeslie Haughney / Deborah Dorenzo vs Leslie Wilshusen / Diane Chaves6-7, 5-3
L#3 DoublesMarsha Speck / Laurie Jo Rogers vs Fletcher Olson / Judith Jennet2-6, 6-4, 0-1
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 standings2 teams · 9.0 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Hawaii/Haughney/65&Over9.0W30631082
2Team 203361495

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 3.49 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.

3.74
Julie Park
usually #1 Doubles 43%, also #3 Doubles 43% · published
3.71
Leslie Haughney
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.67
Marsha Speck
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.50
Alice Shingle
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.36
Diane Chaves
usually #2 Doubles 40%, also #3 Doubles 40% · published 3.5
3.28
Leslie Wilshusen
usually #3 Doubles 75%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published
3.17
Bonnie Gray
published 3.5
Laurie Jo Rogers
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Liliana Bruggemann
published
Rosalie Holland
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.

Leslie Wilshusen + Diane Chaves3346% games−0.2% vs expected
Alice Shingle + Marsha Speck213 matchesnot enough data
Alice Shingle + Laurie Jo Rogers123 matchesnot enough data
Marsha Speck + Laurie Jo Rogers123 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.

Julie Park
158W–127L career · 7 lines in 2022
3%94%2%
3.74
4
Leslie Haughney
80W–48L career · 2 lines in 2022
5%94%1%
3.71
4
Marsha Speck
28W–29L career · 2 lines in 2022
9%90%1%
3.67
4
Alice Shingle
27W–26L career · 1 line in 2022
52%48%<1%
3.50
3.5
Diane Chaves
116W–106L career · 5 lines in 2022
<1%86%14%
3.36
Leslie Wilshusen
46W–91L career · 4 lines in 2022
2%94%4%
3.28
3.5
Bonnie Gray
8W–42L career · no lines in 2022
10%90%1%
3.17
Laurie Jo Rogers
29W–19L career · 3 lines in 2022
not enough data
Liliana Bruggemann
33W–22L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Rosalie Holland
6W–20L career · no 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.