Teams

GB:Williams:Whittier

2022 NH Adult 55 & Over Women Day · 6.0 Women 1

11 players · average NTRP 3.00 / NEW HAMPSHIRE

View scouting list →
Schedule8 played
2022-03-03vs ALG:Ladiesof422d:Lombardi:LeibigWon 30
W#1 DoublesKaren Billipp / Ginger Kraus vs Lori Bondaruk / Catherine Gagnon6-2, 6-7, 1-0
W#2 DoublesAnne Tall / Nan Vigars vs Linda Leibig / Kristine Quintal6-2, 4-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesPhyllis Mastroianni / Sandra Tague vs Terri Foden / Louise Bernier4-6, 6-3, 1-0
2022-02-17vs HSB:Matchmakers:Randle:ClicheLost 12
L#1 DoublesGinger Kraus / Anne Tall vs Susanne Trask / Kate Miller7-6, 3-6, 0-1
W#2 DoublesPhyllis Mastroianni / Nan Vigars vs Leslie Cliche / Lee Sullivan6-4, 2-6, 1-0
L#3 DoublesJacqueline Wolters / Sheila Whittier vs Maureen Zeff / Julie Malvone1-6, 0-6
2022-02-03vs NPT:Giles:JachimLost 02
L#1 DoublesGinger Kraus / Anne Tall vs Linda Arnold / C Lewis4-6, 4-6
L#2 DoublesPhyllis Mastroianni / Sandra Tague vs Betty Ann Giles / Elizabeth Truax1-6, 1-6
2021-12-16vs EXE:Law:BrunoLost 12
L#1 DoublesAnne Tall / Karen Billipp vs Vivien Law / Darby Bruno2-6, 4-6
W#2 DoublesSharon Hughes / Janice Williams vs Leslie Rifkin / Julie A Tieder6-2, 1-6, 1-0
L#3 DoublesNan Vigars / Sheila Whittier vs Lori Collins / Giovanna Timberlake2-6, 2-6
2021-12-02vs HSB:Matchmakers:Randle:ClicheLost 12
L#1 DoublesNancy Eaton / Julie Kelly vs Elisabeth Cloyd / Christina Cook3-6, 6-4, 0-1
W#2 DoublesSharon Hughes / Anne Tall vs Julie Malvone / Bernadette Randle6-2, 6-3
L#3 DoublesSandra Tague / Janice Williams vs Leslie Cliche / Maureen Zeff5-7, 5-7
2021-11-18vs NPT:Giles:JachimWon 30
W#1 DoublesJulie Kelly / Sharon Hughes vs Linda Arnold / Betty Ann Giles6-0, 6-1
W#2 DoublesJanice Williams / Phyllis Mastroianni vs Gina Hutchins / Julie Deacon6-1, 7-5
W#3 DoublesSheila Whittier / Jacqueline Wolters vs Shelia Cardamone / Pat Tivnan6-2, 6-2
2021-10-21vs ALG:Ladiesof422d:Lombardi:LeibigWon 21
W#1 DoublesJulie Kelly / Sharon Hughes vs Lori Bondaruk / Nancy Glennan-Brethauer6-3, 6-2
W#2 DoublesJanice Williams / Phyllis Mastroianni vs Linda Leibig / Sandra Townsend7-5, 0-6, 1-0
L#3 DoublesNan Vigars / Bonnie Rodriguez vs Debra LaPress / Joreen Hendry4-6, 3-6
2021-10-07vs EXE:Law:BrunoWon 21
W#1 DoublesJulie Kelly / Sharon Hughes vs Darby Bruno / Vivien Law6-1, 3-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesPhyllis Mastroianni / Sandra Tague vs Giovanna Timberlake / Leslie Rifkin6-0, 4-6, 1-0
L#3 DoublesAnne Tall / Janice Williams vs Deborah Maher / Cathy Grimaldi6-3, 6-7, 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 standings4 teams · 6.0 Women 1
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1HSB:Matchmakers:Randle:Cliche0818622212
2GB:Williams:Whittier08131130222
3NPT:Giles:Jachim0881634232
4ALG:Ladiesof422d:Lombardi:Leibig0842041256

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 2.63 estimated across 6 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.

2.94
Ginger Kraus
usually #3 Doubles 63%, also #1 Doubles 38% · published 3
2.88
Karen Billipp
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.65
Anne Tall
usually #3 Doubles 38%, also #1 Doubles 38% · published 3
2.52
Dawn Richardson
published 3
2.40
Sandra Tague
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
2.40
Phyllis Mastroianni
usually #2 Doubles 83%, also #3 Doubles 17% · published
Jacqueline Wolters
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Janice Williams
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #3 Doubles 40% · published
Julie Kelly
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Nan Vigars
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
Sharon Hughes
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 40% · 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.

Anne Tall + Karen Billipp6159% games+4.5% vs expected
Anne Tall + Ginger Kraus4944% games−2.9% vs expected
Sharon Hughes + Julie Kelly7259% gamesnot enough data
Janice Williams + Sharon Hughes6054% gamesnot enough data
Anne Tall + Sandra Tague2335% gamesnot enough data
Sandra Tague + Ginger Kraus224 matchesnot enough data
Sandra Tague + Phyllis Mastroianni224 matchesnot enough data
Anne Tall + Sharon Hughes123 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.

3
Ginger Kraus
34W–67L career · 8 lines in 2022
<1%68%32%
2.94
Karen Billipp
54W–66L career · 2 lines in 2022
<1%83%17%
2.88
3
Anne Tall
92W–84L career · 8 lines in 2022
12%87%<1%
2.65
3
Dawn Richardson
11W–9L career · type S · no lines in 2022
43%57%<1%
2.52
Sandra Tague
27W–43L career · 4 lines in 2022
77%23%<1%
2.40
Phyllis Mastroianni
21W–44L career · 6 lines in 2022
77%23%<1%
2.40
Jacqueline Wolters
21W–34L career · 2 lines in 2022
not enough data
Janice Williams
16W–10L career · 5 lines in 2022
not enough data
Julie Kelly
15W–17L career · 4 lines in 2022
not enough data
Nan Vigars
9W–15L career · 4 lines in 2022
not enough data
Sharon Hughes
22W–15L career · 5 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.