Teams

OPCHICS

2025 Tri Level 55 and Above · Womens 3.0

8 players · average NTRP 3.25 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2025-03-02vs GR - StephensonLost 03
L#1 DoublesKim Alford / Sandy Phillips vs Jeanette Sasser / Sherry Smith3-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesMariana Goldstein / Tracy Wilkinson vs Whitney Musgrave / Susan Johnson4-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesAnnita Best / Susan Hardison vs Karen Copeland / Lisa Thigpen6-4, 3-6, 1-0
2025-03-01vs GR - StephensonLost 12
L#1 DoublesKim Alford / Sandy Phillips vs Sherry Smith / Jeanette Sasser2-6, 3-6
W#2 DoublesTracy Wilkinson / Debra Johann vs Paige Temple / Darlene Worthington6-4, 6-4
L#3 DoublesSusan Hardison / Kathryn Custer vs Debbie Stephenson / Lisa Thigpen6-4, 3-6, 0-1
2025-03-01vs Fun GirlsWon 21
W#1 DoublesDebra Johann / Kim Alford vs Doreen Hyet / Lisa Zurawski6-2, 6-0
L#2 DoublesMariana Goldstein / Tracy Wilkinson vs Jean Herscovici / Susan Moore6-4, 4-6, 0-1
W#3 DoublesKathryn Custer / Annita Best vs Ann Game / Luann Scruggs7-6, 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 Womens 3.0 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 3.12 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.

3.43
Kim Alford
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.32
Sandy Phillips
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.15
Debra Johann
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.13
Mariana Goldstein
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.04
Katherine James
published
3.03
Annita Best
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.97
Susan Hardison
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.89
Kathryn Custer
usually #3 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.

Susan Hardison + Annita Best9176% games+10.5% vs expected
Kim Alford + Sandy Phillips2545% games+5.7% vs expected
Katherine James + Mariana Goldstein2450% games−3.9% vs expected
Susan Hardison + Katherine James404 matchesnot enough data
Sandy Phillips + Mariana Goldstein404 matchesnot enough data
Susan Hardison + Kathryn Custer213 matchesnot enough data
Susan Hardison + Sandy Phillips303 matchesnot enough data
Debra Johann + Kathryn Custer303 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 Alford
5W–6L career · 3 lines in 2025
69%31%<1%
3.43
Sandy Phillips
46W–21L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%1%99%
3.32
3.5
Debra Johann
22W–14L career · 2 lines in 2025
15%85%1%
3.15
Mariana Goldstein
30W–20L career · 2 lines in 2025
17%83%<1%
3.13
Katherine James
18W–7L career · no lines in 2025
37%63%<1%
3.04
3
Annita Best
30W–8L career · type A · 2 lines in 2025
<1%40%60%
3.03
Susan Hardison
33W–9L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%57%43%
2.97
Kathryn Custer
13W–1L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%79%21%
2.89

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.