Teams

LCTA18/Miller/Dunes West

Other 18 & Over Singles League · Women 3.0

6 players · average NTRP 3.00 / SOUTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
L#1 SinglesChristy Miller vs Linda-Triin Ait1-6, 1-6
L#2 SinglesLynden Pelbath vs Gretchen Looney5-7, 1-6
2026-06-06vs LCTA18/Nipp/MPRWon 30
W#1 SinglesLindsay Moore vs Christine Pochily6-1, 6-1
W#2 SinglesNeda Smith vs Catherine Stone6-0, 6-1
W#3 SinglesAnita Castles vs Alice Petzold6-1, 6-0
2026-06-01vs LCTA18/Williams/DICLost 12
L#1 SinglesLindsay Moore vs Kayla Rymer4-6, 4-6
L#2 SinglesNeda Smith vs Anne Kellerman6-3, 6-7, 0-1
W#3 SinglesLynden Pelbath vs Lauren Pelsnik6-0, 7-6
2026-05-16vs LCTA18/Anderson/CTCWon 30
W#1 SinglesNeda Smith vs Denise Braga Jones2-6, 6-4, 1-0
W#2 SinglesMichelle MacKes vs Jesusa Tuppil6-1, 6-1
W#3 SinglesAnita Castles vs Irene Chambers6-3, 6-2
2026-05-14vs LCTA18/Rehder/HamlinWon 20
W#1 SinglesChristy Miller vs Jessica Sciortino6-1, 6-2
W#2 SinglesMichelle MacKes vs Julia Rehder6-4, 6-3
2026-04-25vs LCTA18/Stribling/MaybankWon 30
W#1 SinglesNeda Smith vs Ashley Pace6-3, 6-1
W#2 SinglesChristy Miller vs Lindsay Wigginton6-2, 6-1
W#3 SinglesLindsay Moore vs Emma Hillary6-1, 6-0
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 standings5 teams · Women 3.0
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1LCTA18/Williams/DIC5114411121
2LCTA18/Stribling/Maybank5110819153
3LCTA18/Cala-Hoffman/Brickyard Hoffman4214410106
4LCTA18/Miller/Dunes West4213511107
5LCTA18/Nipp/MPR2461225167

Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.

See the full flight, with every team’s record

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 2.90 estimated across 6 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.

3.08
Michelle MacKes
usually #2 Singles 100% · published
2.98
Lindsay Moore
usually #1 Singles 67%, also #3 Singles 33% · published
2.96
Neda Smith
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #1 Singles 50% · published
2.91
Christy Miller
usually #1 Singles 67%, also #2 Singles 33% · published 3
2.87
Anita Castles
usually #3 Singles 100% · published 3
2.57
Lynden Pelbath
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #3 Singles 50% · 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.

Neda Smith + Michelle MacKes14263% games+9.2% vs expected
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.

Michelle MacKes
86W–45L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%29%71%
3.08
Lindsay Moore
54W–28L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%56%44%
2.98
Neda Smith
86W–81L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%60%40%
2.96
3
Christy Miller
76W–71L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%74%26%
2.91
3
Anita Castles
60W–38L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%82%18%
2.87
Lynden Pelbath
8W–16L career · 2 lines in 2026
31%69%<1%
2.57

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.