Teams

UPTA40A/Forbes/Cardinal

2025 UPTA Adult 40 & Over - USTA · 40 Adult Women - 3.5

20 players · average NTRP 3.50 / SOUTH CAROLINA

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 →
Schedule2 played
2025-04-23vs UPTA40A/Mathias/KrocLost 23
L#1 DoublesNancy Lanois / Kyra Roberts vs Joy Ivester / Leah Wynn3-6, 3-6
W#1 SinglesKimberly Pearigen vs Vilma Billinis6-1, 6-2
L#2 DoublesDeborah Powell / Lorri Laufenberg vs Megan Hoffman / Cindy Lee7-5, 3-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesDebbie Etherington / Sara Mower vs LINDSAY KAPLAN / Kelly Gauntner6-3, 6-1
L#4 DoublesCaroline Carter / Rebecca Gruendling vs Kathleen Reynolds / Catie Kelley4-6, 5-7
2025-03-17vs UPTA40A/Williams/KrocWon 41
L#1 DoublesCaroline Carter / Kyra Roberts vs Allyn Crumpler / Tiffany Taylor4-6, 3-6
W#1 SinglesKimberly Pearigen vs Angie Hill6-3, 6-0
W#2 DoublesDeborah Powell / Lorri Laufenberg vs Anne Williams / Heather Gunter6-0, 5-7, 1-0
W#3 DoublesDebbie Etherington / Sara Mower vs Merle Dunson / Michelle Vine6-4, 6-3
W#4 DoublesSusan Krzeminski / Cynthia Forbes vs Anne Flink / Suzanne Sanders6-1, 6-4
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 40 Adult Women - 3.5 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 3.23 estimated across 17 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.

3.51
Sara Mower
usually #3 Doubles 60%, also #4 Doubles 20% · published
3.48
Tari Dygert
usually #4 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
3.45
Jackie Walker
published 3.5
3.31
Andrea Murillo
published 3.5
3.31
Kimberly Pearigen
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
3.29
Deborah Powell
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.29
Denise Malone
usually #4 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.26
Debbie Etherington
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
Cornelia Buch
published 3.5
3.23
Christine Cole
published 3.5
3.20
Susan Krzeminski
usually #4 Doubles 100% · published
3.17
Dianne White
published 3.5
3.12
Rebecca Gruendling
usually #4 Doubles 100% · published
3.11
Cynthia Forbes
usually #4 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.10
Lorri Laufenberg
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.07
Nancy Lanois
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.07
Katherine Robinson
usually #4 Doubles 100% · published
2.99
Kyra Roberts
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Mary Suski
published
Ria Hydrick
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 Lanois + Kyra Roberts2350% games+2.5% vs expected
Debbie Etherington + Deborah Powell6354% games−1.2% vs expected
Denise Malone + Katherine Robinson101445% games−6.2% vs expected
Debbie Etherington + Nancy Lanois1439% gamesnot enough data
Deborah Powell + Tari Dygert2351% gamesnot enough data
Cynthia Forbes + Jackie Walker3248% gamesnot enough data
Deborah Powell + Dianne White224 matchesnot enough data
Deborah Powell + Lorri Laufenberg224 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.

Sara Mower
29W–12L career · 5 lines in 2025
<1%46%54%
3.51
Tari Dygert
43W–36L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%55%45%
3.48
3.5
Jackie Walker
15W–10L career · no lines in 2025
<1%66%34%
3.45
3.5
Andrea Murillo
40W–38L career · no lines in 2025
1%91%8%
3.31
Kimberly Pearigen
35W–39L career · 2 lines in 2025
1%92%7%
3.31
3.5
Deborah Powell
25W–25L career · 3 lines in 2025
1%93%5%
3.29
3.5
Denise Malone
16W–25L career · 1 line in 2025
1%93%5%
3.29
3.5
Debbie Etherington
19W–12L career · 2 lines in 2025
2%94%3%
3.26
3.5
Cornelia Buch
2W–2L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
3.5
Christine Cole
6W–4L career · no lines in 2025
4%94%2%
3.23
Susan Krzeminski
39W–45L career · 1 line in 2025
6%93%1%
3.20
3.5
Dianne White
18W–11L career · no lines in 2025
10%90%1%
3.17
Rebecca Gruendling
12W–11L career · 1 line in 2025
18%82%<1%
3.12
3.5
Cynthia Forbes
12W–15L career · 3 lines in 2025
19%81%<1%
3.11
Lorri Laufenberg
9W–10L career · 2 lines in 2025
21%79%<1%
3.10
Nancy Lanois
12W–24L career · 1 line in 2025
29%71%<1%
3.07
Katherine Robinson
17W–27L career · 2 lines in 2025
30%70%<1%
3.07
Kyra Roberts
17W–25L career · 2 lines in 2025
54%46%<1%
2.99
Mary Suski
6W–2L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Ria Hydrick
2W–2L career · no lines 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.