Teams

JDS-JOHNSON

2025 MATA USTA Adult 40 & Over - Spring · 3.0 Women Day Tuesday

12 players · average NTRP 3.00 / GEORGIA

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 →
Schedule7 played
2025-03-18vs JDS-MORGANLost 12
L#1 DoublesIbelise Castro / Phyllis Lane vs Courtney Williams / Payton Churchwell2-6, 5-7
L#2 DoublesChristine Samet / Elizabeth Herndon vs Teresa HURT / Shaneji Ward2-6, 3-6
W#3 DoublesBarbara Flanagan / Rita Fletcher vs Mary Morgan / Jill Dean6-4, 4-6, 1-0
2025-03-11vs JDS-MORGANLost 02
L#1 DoublesPhyllis Lane / Elizabeth Herndon vs Courtney Williams / Lori Prine5-7, 5-7
L#2 DoublesChristine Samet / Barbara Flanagan vs Betsy Slocumb / Shaneji Ward4-6, 4-6
2025-03-04vs JDS-MORGANWon 21
L#1 DoublesBarbara Flanagan / Hilary Ellwood vs Courtney Williams / Lori Prine4-6, 1-6
W#2 DoublesChristine Samet / Elizabeth Herndon vs Rolonda Gaskins / Payton Churchwell6-3, 6-3
W#3 DoublesIbelise Castro / Anita C Smith vs Jill Dean / Mary Morgan6-4, 2-6, 1-0
2025-02-25vs JDS-MORGANSplit 22
L#1 DoublesBarbara Flanagan / Elizabeth Herndon vs Lori Prine / Courtney Williams1-6, 2-6
L#1 SinglesRita Fletcher vs Shaneji Ward1-6, 0-6
W#2 DoublesSharon Livingston / Christine Samet vs Betsy Slocumb / Teresa HURT7-5, 6-2
W#3 DoublesPhyllis Lane / Mary Walker vs Mary Morgan / Payton Churchwell0-6, 6-1, 1-0
2025-02-18vs JDS-MORGANLost 03
L#1 DoublesSharon Livingston / Phyllis Lane vs Courtney Williams / Lori Prine3-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesDana Johnson / Peggy Elliott vs Rolonda Gaskins / Mary Morgan7-6, 2-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesChristine Samet / Mary Walker vs Teresa HURT / Betsy Slocumb4-6, 0-6
2025-02-11vs JDS-MORGANLost 12
L#1 DoublesPeggy Elliott / Phyllis Lane vs Rolonda Gaskins / Payton Churchwell6-4, 4-6, 0-1
L#2 DoublesSharon Livingston / Christine Samet vs Courtney Williams / Lori Prine4-6, 3-6
W#3 DoublesBarbara Flanagan / Elizabeth Herndon vs Betsy Slocumb / Mary Morgan6-7, 7-5, 1-0
2025-02-04vs JDS-MORGANWon 21
W#1 DoublesIbelise Castro / Phyllis Lane vs Lori Prine / Courtney Williams2-6, 7-6, 1-0
L#2 DoublesHilary Ellwood / Anne Tunnessen vs Shaneji Ward / Payton Churchwell4-6, 4-6
W#3 DoublesChristine Samet / Sharon Livingston vs Mary Morgan / Jill Dean6-3, 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 3.0 Women Day Tuesday 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 2.76 estimated across 12 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.

3.03
Sharon Livingston
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
3.00
Hilary Ellwood
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 3
2.93
Phyllis Lane
usually #1 Doubles 83%, also #3 Doubles 17% · published
2.92
Elizabeth Herndon
usually #4 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 20% · published 3.5
2.92
Ibelise Castro
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 25% · published 3
2.83
Anne Tunnessen
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.83
Christine Samet
usually #2 Doubles 71%, also #3 Doubles 29% · published 3
2.70
Mary Walker
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.68
Peggy Elliott
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
2.54
Barbara Flanagan
usually #3 Doubles 40%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published 3
2.42
Rita Fletcher
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 50% · published
2.33
Anita C Smith
usually #3 Doubles 100% · 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.

Christine Samet + Sharon Livingston19562% games+4.6% vs expected
Phyllis Lane + Ibelise Castro13259% games+2.7% vs expected
Phyllis Lane + Sharon Livingston9555% games−5.8% vs expected
Phyllis Lane + Christine Samet3349% games−13.6% vs expected
Phyllis Lane + Hilary Ellwood3254% gamesnot enough data
Hilary Ellwood + Sharon Livingston4166% gamesnot enough data
Anita C Smith + Anne Tunnessen314 matchesnot enough data
Anita C Smith + Sharon Livingston224 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.

Sharon Livingston
51W–27L career · 4 lines in 2025
<1%42%58%
3.03
3
Hilary Ellwood
27W–10L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%51%49%
3.00
Phyllis Lane
48W–23L career · 6 lines in 2025
<1%71%28%
2.93
3.5
Elizabeth Herndon
43W–63L career · 10 lines in 2025
73%27%<1%
2.92
3
Ibelise Castro
38W–22L career · 4 lines in 2025
<1%73%27%
2.92
3
Anne Tunnessen
18W–22L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%89%10%
2.83
3
Christine Samet
41W–22L career · 7 lines in 2025
1%89%10%
2.83
Mary Walker
16W–16L career · 2 lines in 2025
6%93%1%
2.70
Peggy Elliott
27W–23L career · 2 lines in 2025
8%91%1%
2.68
3
Barbara Flanagan
13W–24L career · 5 lines in 2025
37%63%<1%
2.54
Rita Fletcher
5W–15L career · 2 lines in 2025
73%27%<1%
2.42
2.5
Anita C Smith
13W–13L career · 1 line in 2025
0%91%9%
2.33

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.