Teams

Harrison/Demott/GHS/BP

2025 Adult 55 & Over Spring League · 4.0 Women - Isolated

10 players · average NTRP 3.67 / ARKANSAS

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2025-03-17vs Cramer/TexarkanaLost 02
L#1 DoublesCheryl Cooper / Diane Bischof vs Kala Cramer / Beth Hawkins2-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesKaren Demott / Kara Ford vs Carol Ketchum / Dee Healy2-6, 5-7
2025-03-07vs Cramer/TexarkanaLost 02
L#1 DoublesDiane Bischof / Karen Demott vs Carol Ketchum / Dee Healy7-6, 3-6, 0-1
L#2 DoublesSara Barnett / Kara Ford vs Kala Cramer / Beth Hawkins1-6, 0-6
2025-02-28vs Cramer/TexarkanaLost 12
L#1 DoublesLonna Hansen / Rhea Ruggles vs Dee Healy / Carol Ketchum3-6, 6-7
W#2 DoublesEmily Hartsfield / Ruth Light vs Beth Hawkins / Sharon Ward6-4, 3-2
L#3 DoublesCarol Jones / Mary Harrison vs Kala Cramer / Sabrena Hughes1-6, 1-6
2025-02-28vs Cramer/TexarkanaLost 03
L#1 DoublesEmily Hartsfield / Ruth Light vs Kala Cramer / Sabrena Hughes6-4, 6-7
L#2 DoublesCarol Jones / Rhea Ruggles vs Beth Hawkins / Sharon Ward6-7, 2-6
L#3 DoublesCheryl Cooper / Sara Barnett vs Carol Ketchum / Dee Healy1-6, 1-6
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 4.0 Women - Isolated 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 3.40 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.

3.65
Carol Jones
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.60
Ruth Light
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.43
Cheryl Cooper
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.33
Diane Bischof
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.20
Kara Ford
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.20
Sara Barnett
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
Emily Hartsfield
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
Karen Demott
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
Lonna Hansen
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Rhea Ruggles
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · 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.

Diane Bischof + Karen Demott314 matchesnot enough data
Cheryl Cooper + Sara Barnett213 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.

4
Carol Jones
15W–17L career · 2 lines in 2025
14%85%1%
3.65
Ruth Light
3W–5L career · 2 lines in 2025
25%75%<1%
3.60
3.5
Cheryl Cooper
6W–4L career · type A · 2 lines in 2025
<1%68%32%
3.43
3.5
Diane Bischof
22W–8L career · 2 lines in 2025
1%88%11%
3.33
Kara Ford
4W–5L career · 2 lines in 2025
7%91%2%
3.20
Sara Barnett
3W–3L career · 2 lines in 2025
7%91%2%
3.20
Emily Hartsfield
1W–2L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Karen Demott
5W–2L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Lonna Hansen
2W–5L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Rhea Ruggles
2W–4L career · 2 lines in 2025
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.