Teams

Furlow - Forest Lakes

2025 Charlottesville Singles · Charlottesville Singles 3.5 Women

7 players · average NTRP 3.62 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2025-10-16vs BHSC- RyanWon 20
W#2 SinglesMary Beth Cancienne vs Carrie Cooper0-6, 6-2, 1-0
W#3 SinglesJenny Furlow vs Maggie Mudd6-2, 3-6, 1-0
2025-10-01vs Bayliss - ACAC Simply SmashingWon 10
W#1 SinglesMary Beth Cancienne vs Anita Impagliazzo7-5, 6-3
2025-09-30Won 10
W#1 SinglesMary Beth Cancienne vs Carrie Cooper6-3, 7-5
2025-09-25vs Fletcher - Sets on the BeachSplit 11
W#1 SinglesJennifer Perkinson vs Lori Gagnon6-0, 6-4
L#2 SinglesCourtney Heyward vs Mary Primm5-7, 7-5, 0-1
2025-09-17vs Faulconer Saul- FarmingtonLost 02
L#1 SinglesLinda Corradino vs Penny Ward3-6, 2-6
L#2 SinglesMaggie Leary vs Anne Barger6-3, 6-7, 0-1
2025-09-06vs Bayliss - ACAC Simply SmashingWon 10
W#1 SinglesJenny Furlow vs Karin Jones6-3, 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 Charlottesville Singles 3.5 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 3.42 estimated across 5 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.

3.62
Jennifer Perkinson
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
3.55
Jenny Furlow
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #3 Singles 50% · published 3.5
3.48
Mary Beth Cancienne
usually #3 Singles 40%, also #1 Singles 40% · published 4
3.24
Faith Zabek
published 3.5
3.22
Courtney Heyward
usually #2 Singles 100% · published 3.5
Linda Corradino
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
Maggie Leary
usually #2 Singles 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.

Jenny Furlow + Mary Beth Cancienne161652% games+5.4% vs expected
Jenny Furlow + Jennifer Perkinson314 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.

Jennifer Perkinson
18W–7L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%18%82%
3.62
3.5
Jenny Furlow
144W–102L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%34%66%
3.55
4
Mary Beth Cancienne
82W–73L career · 5 lines in 2025
57%43%<1%
3.48
3.5
Faith Zabek
42W–10L career · no lines in 2025
3%94%2%
3.24
3.5
Courtney Heyward
13W–10L career · 1 line in 2025
5%94%2%
3.22
Linda Corradino
0W–3L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Maggie Leary
0W–1L 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.