Teams

MLong40-DUR

2025 Eno River Combo 40 & Over · 40 & Over Combo 6.5 Women Day

9 players · average NTRP 3.25 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule8 played
2025-10-06vs KMcWhorter40-HVCCWon 21
W#1 DoublesLynda Noga / Lisa Andrew vs Anne Costello / Elizabeth Everett6-2, 6-2
W#2 DoublesRebecca Walsh / Kristine Potter vs Kim McWhorter / Melinda Duncker6-4, 6-2
L#3 DoublesRichelle Robinson / Terry Friddle vs Lauren Powell / Lauren Muth Humphreys3-6, 1-6
2025-10-05vs CStevens-CHTCWon 30
W#1 DoublesKristine Potter / Rebecca Walsh vs Beth Nielsen / Cheryl Stevens6-0, 4-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesMary T Long / Virgina Wilson vs Cynthia Kleeberger / Sheila Newton1-6, 6-3, 1-0
W#3 DoublesRichelle Robinson / Stacy Brehm vs Araya Coffey / Allison Worthy7-6, 7-5
2025-09-22vs KHarshbarger-UNCLost 12
L#1 DoublesLynda Noga / Stacy Brehm vs Kelly Johnson / Kate Harshbarger4-6, 4-6
L#2 DoublesVirgina Wilson / Terry Friddle vs Elaine Yeh / Courtney Mills3-6, 0-6
W#3 DoublesMary T Long / Lisa Andrew vs Ellen Reich / Rebecca Tomasini3-6, 7-6, 1-0
2025-09-15vs DRoach-CHCCLost 12
L#1 DoublesStacy Brehm / Lynda Noga vs Monica Jenkins / Karen Sapir6-3, 2-6, 1-0
L#2 DoublesMary T Long / Virgina Wilson vs Tina Cunningham / Jane Holroyd5-7, 0-6
W#3 DoublesTracey Maurer / Lisa Andrew vs Danielle Hinesley / Lee Wollman6-3, 3-6, 1-0
2025-09-08vs JOgle-CCCWon 21
W#1 DoublesTracey Maurer / Rebecca Walsh vs Jennifer Ogle / Mercer Griffin7-5, 6-4
L#2 DoublesMary T Long / Kristine Potter vs Anna Fadel / Alise McNeill5-7, 5-7
W#3 DoublesTerry Friddle / Lisa Andrew vs Beth Angle / Terry Summers2-6, 6-2, 1-0
2025-08-25vs JRosen40-CHCCLost 12
L#1 DoublesTracey Maurer / Rebecca Walsh vs Tracy Davies / Keri A Clark3-6, 1-6
W#2 DoublesStacy Brehm / Lynda Noga vs Carrie Williamson / Joli Stockwell6-1, 6-3
L#3 DoublesMary T Long / Lisa Andrew vs Jennifer Rosen / Carla Sevilla2-6, 5-7
2025-08-11vs KMcWhorter40-HVCCWon 21
W#1 DoublesRebecca Walsh / Tracey Maurer vs Melinda Duncker / Betsy Euler7-5, 6-4
L#2 DoublesRichelle Robinson / Terry Friddle vs Cecily Peterson / Lauren Powell6-7, 1-6
W#3 DoublesStacy Brehm / Virgina Wilson vs Elizabeth Everett / Stacey Smith6-4, 4-6, 1-0
2025-08-04vs CStevens-CHTCLost 12
W#1 DoublesTracey Maurer / Rebecca Walsh vs Virginia Higuchi / Tara ODonnel6-2, 6-0
L#2 DoublesLisa Andrew / Mary T Long vs Lynne Farber / Araya Coffey3-6, 2-6
L#3 DoublesTerry Friddle / Stacy Brehm vs Cheryl Stevens / Beth Nielsen1-6, 1-6
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 standings7 teams · 40 & Over Combo 6.5 Women Day
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1JRosen40-CHCC8021310151
2KHarshbarger-UNC62131126206
3MLong40-DUR44131128233
4KMcWhorter40-HVCC44111328212
5JOgle-CCC35111329223
6CStevens-CHTC26101431226
7DRoach-CHCC1751941254

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 3.01 estimated across 9 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.

3.43
Lynda Noga
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published 4
3.34
Kristine Potter
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.33
Tracey Maurer
usually #1 Doubles 90%, also #3 Doubles 10% · published 3.5
3.15
Virgina Wilson
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 3
2.82
Stacy Brehm
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.82
Mary T Long
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
2.79
Lisa Andrew
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 17% · published 3
2.71
Richelle Robinson
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.71
Terry Friddle
usually #3 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published 3
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.

Virgina Wilson + Mary T Long5253% games+12.0% vs expected
Stacy Brehm + Terry Friddle8850% games−1.8% vs expected
Richelle Robinson + Terry Friddle7268% gamesnot enough data
Virgina Wilson + Kristine Potter4355% gamesnot enough data
Stacy Brehm + Lynda Noga1449% gamesnot enough data
Stacy Brehm + Mary T Long134 matchesnot enough data
Mary T Long + Lisa Andrew134 matchesnot enough data
Mary T Long + Kristine Potter123 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.

4
Lynda Noga
206W–169L career · 10 lines in 2025
70%30%<1%
3.43
3.5
Kristine Potter
146W–70L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%88%11%
3.34
3.5
Tracey Maurer
85W–63L career · 10 lines in 2025
1%90%10%
3.33
3
Virgina Wilson
50W–46L career · 4 lines in 2025
<1%12%88%
3.15
3
Stacy Brehm
92W–161L career · 6 lines in 2025
1%91%8%
2.82
Mary T Long
48W–104L career · 9 lines in 2025
1%91%8%
2.82
3
Lisa Andrew
13W–19L career · type S · 6 lines in 2025
1%93%5%
2.79
3
Richelle Robinson
125W–138L career · 3 lines in 2025
5%93%1%
2.71
3
Terry Friddle
164W–164L career · 5 lines in 2025
6%93%1%
2.71

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.