Teams

HHTL65/Nagy/Shipyard

65 & Over · 65 & Over LLAS - Women 9.0

10 players · average NTRP 4.50 / SOUTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2024-10-13vs LLAS UPTA65A/Cabot/SpindletreeLost 12
L#1 DoublesSuzanne Gray / Julia White vs Pamela Cabot / Karen Penoncello2-6, 3-6
W#2 DoublesSusie Peiffer / Nancy Carter vs Cindy Eleftheriou / Deb Galinsky6-1, 6-0
L#3 DoublesVicki Nagy / Janel McGinley vs Janet Driscoll / Phyllis Bible3-4
2024-10-12vs LLAS UPTA65A/Cabot/SpindletreeWon 21
L#1 DoublesLori Bergmann / Mary Jackson vs Janet Driscoll / Karen Penoncello2-6, 6-3, 0-1
W#2 DoublesDeborah Hubbart / Cindy Vander Berg vs Deb Galinsky / Pamela Cabot6-2, 6-0
W#3 DoublesSuzanne Gray / Julia White vs Hilary Drammis / Linda Grubbs6-2, 6-0
2024-10-12vs LLAS UPTA65A/Cabot/SpindletreeWon 30
W#1 DoublesSusie Peiffer / Nancy Carter vs Phyllis Bible / Linda Grubbs6-1, 6-1
W#2 DoublesDeborah Hubbart / Cindy Vander Berg vs Cindy Eleftheriou / Janet Driscoll6-3, 6-2
W#3 DoublesJanel McGinley / Priscilla Sisson vs Hilary Drammis / Karen Penoncello6-4, 7-5
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 65 & Over LLAS - Women 9.0 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 4.05 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.

Cindy Vander Berg
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
Deborah Hubbart
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
4.15
Nancy Carter
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
4.10
Suzanne Gray
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.91
Susie Peiffer
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
Janel McGinley
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Lori Bergmann
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Mary Jackson
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Priscilla Sisson
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Vicki Nagy
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.

Nancy Carter + Susie Peiffer24170% games+10.3% vs expected
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.

4.5
Cindy Vander Berg
5W–2L career · 2 lines in 2024
not enough data
4.5
Deborah Hubbart
3W–1L career · 2 lines in 2024
not enough data
Nancy Carter
30W–9L career · 2 lines in 2024
15%85%1%
4.15
Suzanne Gray
6W–27L career · 2 lines in 2024
24%76%<1%
4.10
Susie Peiffer
48W–5L career · 2 lines in 2024
<1%75%25%
3.91
Janel McGinley
1W–1L career · 2 lines in 2024
not enough data
Lori Bergmann
1W–5L career · 1 line in 2024
not enough data
Mary Jackson
3W–3L career · 1 line in 2024
not enough data
Priscilla Sisson
2W–1L career · 1 line in 2024
not enough data
Vicki Nagy
6W–5L career · 1 line 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.