Gillie Park: Top Spins
2023 40&Over Women · 3.5
16 players · average NTRP 3.08 / SOUTHERN REGION
No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.
Schedule13 played
i
Flight standings23 teams · 3.5
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1SPORTIME Westchester Armada | 0 | 9 | 21 | 237 |
| 2Pleasantville Tennis Club: Over-Served | 0 | 9 | 22 | 234 |
| 3Southern: NRRC: Ms Marvels | 0 | 9 | 23 | 227 |
| 4Willowbrook: Cubs | 0 | 9 | 25 | 272 |
| 5Saw Mill Double Trouble | 0 | 9 | 26 | 271 |
| 6New York Athletic club. Aphrodites | 0 | 9 | 28 | 272 |
| 7CRRC Queens of the Court | 0 | 9 | 31 | 290 |
| 8TCH: Love is a Battlefield | 0 | 9 | 33 | 285 |
| 9Armonk Tennis Club: Smash Hits | 0 | 9 | 37 | 308 |
| 10Club Fit Briarcliff: Tough Love | 0 | 9 | 40 | 337 |
| 11CFB Highly Strung | 0 | 9 | 41 | 327 |
| 12Match Point: High Fives | 0 | 9 | 42 | 333 |
| 13Life Time Jade | 0 | 9 | 44 | 334 |
| 14County: Crushers | 0 | 9 | 44 | 327 |
| 15NRRC: WiseAces | 0 | 9 | 45 | 346 |
| 16Chestnut Ridge: Rally Cats | 0 | 9 | 47 | 341 |
| 17Saw Mill: Fringe | 0 | 9 | 52 | 366 |
| 18Jefferson Valley Club Fit: Court’s in Session | 0 | 9 | 53 | 371 |
| 19Gillie Park: Top Spins | 0 | 9 | 54 | 379 |
| 20Fox Meadow Tennis Club | 0 | 9 | 54 | 371 |
| 21Hampshire Country Club: Let’s Play | 0 | 9 | 55 | 365 |
| 22Greenburgh: The Closers | 0 | 9 | 59 | 392 |
| 23Armonk: Get a Grip | 0 | 9 | 60 | 388 |
Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.
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 2.89 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.
Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.
| Susan Williamson + Elizabeth Johnson | 39–14 | 55% games | +3.3% vs expected |
| Eileen Troise + Nancy Ossenfort | 52–40 | 52% games | +0.2% vs expected |
| Elaine Hartstein + Patricia King | 7–13 | 42% games | −7.1% vs expected |
| Elaine Hartstein + Barbara Gallois | 15–5 | 62% games | −11.6% vs expected |
| Nancy Simon + J Susan Hessney | 2–5 | 41% games | not enough data |
| Diane Couzens + Barbara Gallois | 2–5 | 40% games | not enough data |
| Penny Gill + Barbara Gallois | 1–4 | 39% games | not enough data |
| Nancy Ossenfort + Susan Williamson | 2–2 | 4 matches | not enough data |
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.
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.