Teams

The Strand / Rogge

2025 Collier Adult 40 & Over Spring · 3.5 Adult 40 & Over Women

12 players · average NTRP 3.33 / REGION_7

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2025-05-14vs Longshore Lake / BeckLost 03
L#1 DoublesSusan Rogge / Bridget Leopold vs SUE BECK / Natalia Zeman1-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesKatherine MacWilliams / Cindy Simonovich vs Alexandrina Covato / Michelle Bammel2-6, 6-4, 0-1
L#3 DoublesNancy Golya / Barbara Verica vs Margaret Laggis / Teal Aroy5-7, 4-6
2025-03-26vs Quail West -Split 22
L#1 DoublesRhonda Jacobson / Teri Gyemi vs Colleen Bresson / Rejeanne Desrosiers7-6, 2-6, 0-1
L#1 SinglesSusan Rogge vs Karen Romine2-6, 6-3, 1-0
W#2 DoublesKatherine MacWilliams / Karyl Leggio vs Michelle Minor / Aster Leitner3-6, 6-2, 1-0
W#3 DoublesStacy Ludwig / Terri Higgins vs Jennifer Koivu / Kellie Wagner6-3, 6-1
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 3.5 Adult 40 & Over 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 3.18 estimated across 9 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.

3.47
Susan Rogge
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.46
Laura Cirillo
published
3.37
Katherine MacWilliams
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.25
Stacy Ludwig
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.19
Rhonda Jacobson
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.17
Karyl Leggio
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.12
Teri Gyemi
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.04
Cindy Simonovich
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
Bridget Leopold
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.55
Nancy Golya
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Terri Higgins
usually #3 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.

Rhonda Jacobson + Susan Rogge3845% games−3.6% vs expected
Laura Cirillo + Terri Higgins3257% gamesnot 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.

Susan Rogge
11W–16L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%58%42%
3.47
Laura Cirillo
21W–7L career · no lines in 2025
<1%63%37%
3.46
Katherine MacWilliams
32W–16L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%84%15%
3.37
3.5
Donna Pellegrini Alderman
2W–0L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Stacy Ludwig
14W–17L career · 1 line in 2025
3%95%3%
3.25
Rhonda Jacobson
3W–14L career · 1 line in 2025
7%92%1%
3.19
Karyl Leggio
8W–5L career · 1 line in 2025
10%90%1%
3.17
Teri Gyemi
1W–3L career · 1 line in 2025
18%82%<1%
3.12
3.5
Cindy Simonovich
2W–4L career · 1 line in 2025
37%63%<1%
3.04
3
Bridget Leopold
0W–1L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Nancy Golya
3W–4L career · 3 lines in 2025
36%64%<1%
2.55
Terri Higgins
30W–13L career · 1 line 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.