Teams

NITA S 80W65b Schaumburg-Bennett

2024 NITA3 Summer Adult 65 & Over · NITA Summer Adult 65 & Over 8.0 Women

7 players · average NTRP 3.30 / NORTHERN ILLINOIS

No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
L#1 DoublesSharon Martinez / Lynn Oddi vs Colleen Curran / Martha Lloyd1-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesTerrie Bennett / Sue Keough vs Cathy Evangelist / Patricia Wright2-6, 4-6
L#3 DoublesPeggy Caslow / Catherine Golz vs Laury Scheyer / Susan Tuthill2-6, 0-6
L#1 DoublesSharon Martinez / Lynn Oddi vs Paulette Jenne / Mimi Paffrath1-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesCatherine Golz / Terrie Bennett vs Patrice Duffy / Cathy Evangelist1-6, 1-6
L#1 DoublesLynn Oddi / Sharon Martinez vs Patricia Wright / Patrice Duffy2-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesNorma Ericson / Catherine Golz vs Paulette Jenne / Mimi Paffrath0-6, 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 standings2 teams · NITA Summer Adult 65 & Over 8.0 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1NITA S 80W65a Schaumburg-Paffrath/Tuthill3090018
2NITA S 80W65b Schaumburg-Bennett030918108

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 2.96 estimated across 5 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.

3.32
Sue Keough
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.22
Norma Ericson
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
2.95
Peggy Caslow
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
2.73
Sharon Martinez
usually #1 Doubles 63%, also #3 Doubles 38% · published 3
2.58
Catherine Golz
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3
Lynn Oddi
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Terrie Bennett
usually #2 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.

Catherine Golz + Sharon Martinez2836% gamesnot enough data
Norma Ericson + Sharon Martinez3352% gamesnot enough data
Norma Ericson + Catherine Golz3255% gamesnot enough data
Sharon Martinez + Sue Keough134 matchesnot enough data
Lynn Oddi + Sharon Martinez033 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.

3.5
Sue Keough
57W–110L career · 6 lines in 2024
1%91%8%
3.32
3.5
Norma Ericson
87W–48L career · 6 lines in 2024
4%94%2%
3.22
3.5
Peggy Caslow
72W–74L career · 1 line in 2024
65%35%<1%
2.95
3
Sharon Martinez
115W–167L career · 8 lines in 2024
4%94%2%
2.73
3
Catherine Golz
67W–80L career · 8 lines in 2024
28%72%<1%
2.58
Lynn Oddi
0W–3L career · 3 lines in 2024
not enough data
Terrie Bennett
0W–2L career · 2 lines in 2024
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.