Teams

TBlankenship (PCC)

2022 Singles 40 & Over League · 40 & Over Singles 3.0 Women

8 players · average NTRP 3.20 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule9 played
2022-07-28vs WRossi (Blakeney)Won 20
W#1 SinglesBrandi Marks vs Rachel Grantham3-3
W#2 SinglesAshley Sofsian vs Virginia Katzen6-2, 6-2
2022-07-27Split 11
W#1 SinglesAshley Sofsian vs Lisa Moore6-1, 6-0
L#2 SinglesKim Garner vs Aurora Ciaciura1-6, 6-2, 1-0
2022-07-27vs DCombis (River Hills)Won 10
W#1 SinglesBrandi Marks vs Julie Carlsen6-1, 6-2
2022-07-18vs TAmos/VSofarelli (Weddington)Won 10
W#1 SinglesBrandi Marks vs Olivia Day6-1, 6-2
2022-06-29Won 20
W#1 SinglesBrandi Marks vs Joanne Hurley6-4, 7-5
W#2 SinglesAshley Sofsian vs Tracy McLaughlin6-1, 6-0
2022-06-22vs DCombis (River Hills)Won 20
W#1 SinglesBrandi Marks vs Sophie Karsch6-3, 4-6, 1-0
W#2 SinglesAshley Sofsian vs Leah Youngblood6-1, 6-1
2022-06-22vs KDay (OPRC )Won 10
W#1 SinglesAshley Sofsian vs Jimena Lozano de Bermudez6-3, 6-2
2022-06-15vs KCurley (Raintree)Won 20
W#1 SinglesLisa Sciortino vs Tricia Shaw6-4, 7-5
W#2 SinglesKim Garner vs Mary Anne Bullock7-5, 6-1
2022-06-01vs WRossi (Blakeney)Lost 01
L#2 SinglesKim Garner vs Virginia Katzen4-6, 4-6
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 & Over Singles 3.0 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 2.97 estimated across 7 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.

3.31
Brandi Marks
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 3.5
3.26
Maggie Webb
published
3.25
Ashley Sofsian
usually #2 Singles 60%, also #1 Singles 40% · published 3.5
2.92
Lisa Sciortino
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 3
2.77
Kim Garner
usually #2 Singles 100% · published 3
2.73
Elizabeth Suppa
published 3
2.55
Trina Blankenship
published
Meg McSherry
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.

Brandi Marks + Ashley Sofsian6848% games−5.0% vs expected
Lisa Sciortino + Ashley Sofsian8260% gamesnot enough data
Maggie Webb + Ashley Sofsian213 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.

3.5
Brandi Marks
97W–65L career · 5 lines in 2022
1%92%7%
3.31
Maggie Webb
19W–9L career · no lines in 2022
2%94%3%
3.26
3.5
Ashley Sofsian
110W–76L career · 5 lines in 2022
3%95%2%
3.25
3
Lisa Sciortino
44W–29L career · 1 line in 2022
<1%72%28%
2.92
3
Kim Garner
43W–50L career · 3 lines in 2022
2%94%4%
2.77
3
Elizabeth Suppa
5W–18L career · no lines in 2022
4%94%2%
2.73
Trina Blankenship
1W–18L career · no lines in 2022
>99%<1%<1%
2.55
Meg McSherry
0W–3L career · no lines in 2022
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.