Teams

Winston

2026 Hampton Roads Tri-Level Weeknight · Hampton Roads Tri-Level Weeknight 3.5, 3.0, 2.5 Women

6 players · average NTRP 3.50 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2026-09-10vs Dimaya - Court MermaidsLost 02
L#1 DoublesMandy Chu / Rebecca Newton vs Janet Marx / Tammy Berry2-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesMyong Winston / Martha Daas vs Heather Truman / NATALIE ASHCRAFT6-1, 1-6, 0-1
2026-08-31vs Dimaya - Court MermaidsLost 02
L#1 DoublesRebecca Newton / Erin Douglass vs Janice Sabio / Laurin Haupt4-6, 4-6
L#2 DoublesMyong Winston / Martha Daas vs Heather Truman / Shannon Dupre2-6, 7-5, 0-1
2026-08-24vs Dimaya - Court MermaidsSplit 11
L#1 DoublesErin Douglass / Rebecca Newton vs Tammy Berry / Laurin Haupt7-5, 4-6, 0-1
W#2 DoublesMyong Winston / Martha Daas vs Somer Dimaya / Heather Truman6-4, 6-4
2026-08-17vs Dimaya - Court MermaidsSplit 11
L#1 DoublesMegan Hallberg / Mandy Chu vs Tammy Berry / Janet Marx3-6, 3-6
W#2 DoublesMyong Winston / Martha Daas vs Heather Truman / NATALIE ASHCRAFT6-4, 6-3
2026-08-10vs Dimaya - Court MermaidsLost 02
L#1 DoublesRebecca Newton / Erin Douglass vs Tammy Berry / Janet Marx3-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesMegan Hallberg / Mandy Chu vs Shannon Dupre / Heather Truman6-7, 2-6
2026-08-03vs WaltersSplit 11
L#1 DoublesRebecca Newton / Megan Hallberg vs Janice Sabio / Laurin Haupt3-6, 4-6
W#2 DoublesMyong Winston / Mandy Chu vs Somer Dimaya / Shannon Dupre3-6, 6-4, 1-0
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 standings2 teams · Hampton Roads Tri-Level Weeknight 3.5, 3.0, 2.5 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Dimaya - Court Mermaids2042438
2Winston0224965

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 3.00 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.

3.27
Rebecca Newton
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.16
Erin Douglass
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.07
Myong Winston
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.02
Mandy Chu
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.00
Megan Hallberg
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
2.46
Martha Daas
usually #2 Doubles 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.

Martha Daas + Myong Winston224 matchesnot enough data
Erin Douglass + Rebecca Newton033 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.

Rebecca Newton
12W–13L career · 5 lines in 2026
2%94%4%
3.27
3.5
Erin Douglass
3W–4L career · 3 lines in 2026
11%89%<1%
3.16
Myong Winston
10W–6L career · 5 lines in 2026
<1%30%70%
3.07
Mandy Chu
1W–8L career · 4 lines in 2026
43%57%<1%
3.02
Megan Hallberg
6W–3L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%49%51%
3.00
Martha Daas
4W–4L career · 4 lines in 2026
64%36%<1%
2.46

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.