← Teams

LCOX

2022 Capital Summer 18 & Over Singles League · 3.0 Women

8 players · average NTRP 3.40 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule9 played
2022-07-28vs JPhillips 3.0 Summer SinglesLost 0–1
L#1 SinglesKaren Hepp vs Leah Curran6-1, 5-7, 0-1
2022-07-27vs S. White/ERCWon 1–0
W#2 SinglesSheila Breckenridge vs Bonnie Landaverdy6-0, 6-2
2022-07-20vs JWOLBORSKY SUMMER SINGLESWon 1–0
W#2 SinglesConnie Haynes vs Jill Dykes6-4, 6-3
2022-07-06Won 1–0
W#2 SinglesSheila Breckenridge vs June Boda6-1, 6-0
2022-06-29vs KLamb Summer SinglesWon 1–0
W#2 SinglesKaren Hepp vs Jo Ann Novak6-2, 4-6, 1-0
2022-06-22vs DRusnak 3.0Won 1–0
W#3 SinglesSheila Breckenridge vs Brittany Shumaker6-0, 6-0
2022-06-18vs BWilhelm 3.0Lost 0–1
L#2 SinglesKaren Hepp vs Barbara Wilhelm4-6, 1-6
2022-06-15vs KDayWon 1–0
W#2 SinglesConnie Haynes vs Leigh Stallings6-0, 6-2
2022-06-01vs SOverholserWon 1–0
W#3 SinglesConnie Haynes vs Emily Boyer6-2, 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 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 3.28 estimated across 8 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.

3.75
Kim Peters
published —
3.48
Laura Cox
published —
3.46
Ann Skvarcius
published 3.5
3.43
Alison Kalinowski
published 3.5
3.28
Karen Hepp
usually #2 Singles 67%, also #1 Singles 33% · published 3.5
3.10
Sheila Breckenridge
usually #2 Singles 67%, also #3 Singles 33% · published 3.5
2.92
Michelle Gessner
published —
2.79
Connie Haynes
usually #2 Singles 67%, also #3 Singles 33% · 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.

Connie Haynes + Karen Hepp11–263% games+1.7% vs expected
Sheila Breckenridge + Karen Hepp9–657% games+0.4% vs expected
Michelle Gessner + Connie Haynes5–256% games−1.6% vs expected
Sheila Breckenridge + Connie Haynes26–1061% games−7.1% vs expected
Sheila Breckenridge + Laura Cox2–13 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.

—
Kim Peters
23W–22L career · no lines in 2022
3%95%3%
3.75
—
Laura Cox
18W–14L career · no lines in 2022
<1%55%45%
3.48
3.5
Ann Skvarcius
20W–13L career · no lines in 2022
<1%61%39%
3.46
3.5
Alison Kalinowski
27W–14L career · no lines in 2022
<1%71%29%
3.43
3.5
Karen Hepp
174W–98L career · 3 lines in 2022
1%94%5%
3.28
3.5
Sheila Breckenridge
161W–94L career · 3 lines in 2022
21%79%<1%
3.10
—
Michelle Gessner
11W–12L career · no lines in 2022
<1%73%27%
2.92
3
Connie Haynes
147W–79L career · 3 lines in 2022
1%94%5%
2.79

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.