Teams

WNCM Kusz (ARC Crowne)

Singles League 18 & Over NC WNC 2025 · 18+ Women 3.0 - Sunday PM

6 players · average NTRP 3.25 / NORTH CAROLINA

No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2025-08-24vs WNCA Sturgill (Aston)Won 30
W#1 SinglesHannah Singleton vs Lindsay Broughel6-3, 6-3
W#2 SinglesMiluska Kusz vs Micah Nielsen6-1, 6-3
W#3 SinglesPatricia van Vonno vs Lisa Samuelson6-2, 6-1
2025-08-17vs WNCA Sturgill (Aston)Won 21
W#1 SinglesPatricia van Vonno vs Sarah Dailey6-3, 6-2
W#2 SinglesMarcella Lanius vs Susanne Loar6-3, 6-4
L#3 SinglesArwen Hawes vs Abigail Sturgill5-7, 1-6
2025-08-16vs WNCC Connell (Aston)Won 30
W#1 SinglesPatricia van Vonno vs Ali Hittinger6-3, 4-1
W#2 SinglesKylie Hopkins vs Catharine Connell6-2, 5-7, 1-0
W#3 SinglesMarcella Lanius vs Elizabeth Vega6-0, 6-0
2025-07-13vs WNCC Connell (Aston)Won 21
W#1 SinglesMarcella Lanius vs Ali Hittinger6-3, 7-5
L#2 SinglesMiluska Kusz vs Laura Martin4-6, 2-6
W#3 SinglesArwen Hawes vs Colleen Riley5-7, 6-3, 1-0
2025-07-06vs WNCA Sturgill (Aston)Won 20
W#2 SinglesKylie Hopkins vs Lisa Samuelson6-1, 6-4
W#3 SinglesPatricia van Vonno vs Micah Nielsen6-0, 6-2
2025-06-22vs WNCC Connell (Aston)Won 20
W#1 SinglesKylie Hopkins vs Laura Martin5-7, 6-3, 1-0
W#3 SinglesMarcella Lanius vs Catharine Connell6-3, 6-3
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 18+ Women 3.0 - Sunday PM 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 2.95 estimated across 5 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.

3.33
Hannah Singleton
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 50% · published 3.5
3.10
Kylie Hopkins
usually #2 Singles 60%, also #1 Singles 40% · published
2.79
Arwen Hawes
usually #3 Singles 100% · published 3
2.78
Patricia van Vonno
usually #3 Singles 50%, also #1 Singles 33% · published
2.74
Miluska Kusz
usually #2 Singles 100% · published
Marcella Lanius
usually #3 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 25% · 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.

Miluska Kusz + Arwen Hawes224 matchesnot enough data
Patricia van Vonno + Hannah Singleton134 matchesnot enough data
Hannah Singleton + Kylie Hopkins213 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.

3.5
Hannah Singleton
25W–8L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%89%10%
3.33
Kylie Hopkins
29W–14L career · 5 lines in 2025
<1%22%78%
3.10
3
Arwen Hawes
17W–27L career · 2 lines in 2025
1%94%5%
2.79
Patricia van Vonno
22W–27L career · 6 lines in 2025
1%94%5%
2.78
Miluska Kusz
31W–22L career · 2 lines in 2025
3%94%2%
2.74
Marcella Lanius
10W–5L career · 4 lines in 2025
not enough data

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.