Teams

Bailey/Nashville

2026 Adult 65 & Over - Nashville · 3.0 Women

7 players · average NTRP 2.83 / TENNESSEE

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2026-06-26vs Pulley/NashvilleLost 12
W#1 DoublesAnnette Crocker / Linda Rizor vs Nadine DuFour / Patti Barrett Wright6-7, 6-0, 1-0
L#2 DoublesAnita Clark / Janet Rowland vs Edith Nau / Jeannie Tapley5-7, 6-0, 0-1
L#3 DoublesMary Ball / Cindy Cunningham vs Judy Hoppe / Joni Beebe5-7, 2-6
2026-06-21vs Pulley/NashvilleWon 20
W#1 DoublesAnnette Crocker / Linda Rizor vs Jeanne Ludington / Jeannie Tapley6-3, 7-6
W#2 DoublesAnita Clark / Mary Ball vs Jenny Barnes / Karen Vasil6-2, 7-5
2026-06-05vs Pulley/NashvilleLost 12
L#1 DoublesNancy Bailey / Janet Rowland vs Jeannie Tapley / Jeanne Ludington6-1, 0-6, 0-1
W#2 DoublesLinda Rizor / Annette Crocker vs Jenny Barnes / Patricia Evans6-0, 6-0
L#3 DoublesMary Smith / Anita Clark vs Janet McMeen / Robin Buchanan5-7, 4-6
2026-05-22vs Pulley/NashvilleLost 12
W#1 DoublesAnnette Crocker / Linda Rizor vs Veronica Pulley / Joni Beebe6-2, 6-2
L#2 DoublesAnita Clark / Janet Rowland vs Janet McMeen / Nadine DuFour4-6, 6-1, 0-1
L#3 DoublesMARY SANDERS / Mary Smith vs Edith Nau / Patti Barrett Wright0-6, 2-6
2026-05-17vs Pulley/NashvilleLost 02
L#2 DoublesCindy Cunningham / MARY SANDERS vs Robin Buchanan / Patricia Evans3-6, 4-4
L#3 DoublesAnita Clark / Janet Rowland vs Jenny Barnes / Karen Vasil6-4, 3-6, 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 standings for 3.0 Women 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 2.68 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.

3.07
Linda Rizor
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
2.87
Kathy McCabe
published
2.80
Annette Crocker
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3
2.71
Janet Rowland
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published
2.62
Anita Clark
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #3 Doubles 40% · published 3
2.43
MARY SANDERS
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
2.23
Cindy Cunningham
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 2.5
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.

Linda Rizor + Annette Crocker404 matchesnot enough data
Janet Rowland + Anita Clark033 matchesnot enough data
Linda Rizor + Kathy McCabe123 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.

Linda Rizor
10W–6L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%31%69%
3.07
Kathy McCabe
5W–14L career · no lines in 2026
82%18%<1%
2.87
3
Annette Crocker
7W–3L career · 4 lines in 2026
2%91%8%
2.80
Janet Rowland
0W–4L career · 4 lines in 2026
6%92%2%
2.71
3
Anita Clark
2W–8L career · type S · 5 lines in 2026
19%81%<1%
2.62
MARY SANDERS
0W–5L career · 2 lines in 2026
68%32%<1%
2.43
2.5
Cindy Cunningham
0W–7L career · 2 lines in 2026
0%97%3%
2.23

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.