Teams

OK/JRoberts/Queens of the Court

2022 Adult 70 & Over Multi-State Championship · 3.5 Women

8 players · average NTRP / ARKANSAS

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2022-04-29vs MS/CarmanSplit 11
L#1 DoublesJoanne Ames / Peggy Wolfe vs Allene Balgord / Zandra Nowell2-6, 6-7
W#2 DoublesLucy Moon / Sandra Hurlbutt vs Peggy Carman / Carol Vest6-7, 6-4, 1-0
2022-04-28vs MS/TRoberts/ Rusty RockersWon 20
W#1 DoublesLucy Moon / Sandra Hurlbutt vs Carolyn White / Jackie Handjis6-1, 6-2
W#2 DoublesJoanne Ames / Peggy Wolfe vs Diane Hebert / Mary Felder7-6, 6-2
2022-04-27vs AR/Bryant/LRSplit 11
W#1 DoublesJoanne Ames / Lucy Moon vs Susan Coleman / Kathleen Brown6-2, 6-3
L#3 DoublesMichele Smith / Sandra Hurlbutt vs Lou Stevens / Chris McGetrick3-6, 3-6
2022-04-27vs AR/JacksonWon 20
W#1 DoublesJoanne Ames / Peggy Wolfe vs Robin Terry / Judy White5-7, 6-2, 1-0
W#3 DoublesLucy Moon / Sandra Hurlbutt vs Beverly Jackson / Carolyn Bowers7-6, 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 standings8 teams · 3.5 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1MS/TRoberts/ Rusty Rockers31939101
2MS/Carman318411116
3AR/Bryant/LR317511113
4AR/Stroud22841197
5OK/JRoberts/Queens of the Court226614118
6AR/Jackson136613118
7MO/VOGEL/Springfield1321020129
8MO/Vander Waerdt1321020142

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 2.93 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.

3.20
Joanne Ames
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
3.02
Michaele Benn
published
2.58
Sandra Hurlbutt
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
Janet Hicks
published
Janice Roberts
published
Jenna Hellack
published
Lucy Moon
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
Peggy Wolfe
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 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.

Peggy Wolfe + Joanne Ames9364% games+0.4% vs expected
Joanne Ames + Lucy Moon151055% games−1.0% vs expected
Jenna Hellack + Michaele Benn231749% games−2.4% vs expected
Sandra Hurlbutt + Lucy Moon314 matchesnot enough data
Sandra Hurlbutt + Janet Hicks213 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.

Joanne Ames
58W–37L career · 4 lines in 2022
7%92%1%
3.20
Michaele Benn
72W–90L career · no lines in 2022
<1%44%56%
3.02
Sandra Hurlbutt
34W–47L career · 4 lines in 2022
27%73%<1%
2.58
Janet Hicks
20W–20L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Janice Roberts
11W–8L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Jenna Hellack
48W–98L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Lucy Moon
28W–41L career · 4 lines in 2022
not enough data
Peggy Wolfe
10W–3L career · 3 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.