Teams

Farley/Cooke - Dlbs 3.0W

2022 Piedmont Summer Daze Doubles · Summer Daze 3.0 Women Night

14 players · average NTRP 3.00 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2022-08-01vs Cornwall - Dlbs 3.0WWon 10
W#3 DoublesMedy Wurth / Angie Messick vs Amber Siesling / Melinda Lamb6-2, 6-3
2022-07-18vs Davis C. - Dbls 3.0WWon 10
W#2 DoublesMariann Van Ryen / Tesha Whaley vs Katie Bir / Lara Heberle6-4, 6-1
2022-07-11vs Cathey - Dbls 3.0WWon 10
W#1 DoublesMariann Van Ryen / Angie Messick vs Lindy Herman / Megan Ray6-3, 6-1
2022-06-20vs Devaney/Tsuei - Dlbs 3.0WWon 10
W#1 DoublesMariann Van Ryen / Angie Messick vs Megan Kesler / Andrea Bushnell6-2, 7-5
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 Summer Daze 3.0 Women Night 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 3.00 estimated across 14 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.

3.37
Mandi Clift
published
3.37
Cindy Cooke
published 3
3.31
Tamara LeClair
published
3.30
Tesha Whaley
published
3.29
Kelly Cope
published
3.00
Medy Wurth
published
2.97
Michelle Shoemaker
published
2.93
Angie Messick
usually #3 Doubles 57%, also #1 Doubles 29% · published 3
2.89
Susan Rogers
published
2.89
Janice Wilkinson
published
2.77
Lee Farley
published
2.68
Gayle Taylordean
published 3
2.65
Mariann Van Ryen
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
2.62
Linda Shuster
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.

Kelly Cope + Mandi Clift14559% games+7.1% vs expected
Angie Messick + Mariann Van Ryen201555% games−9.7% vs expected
Angie Messick + Cindy Cooke4169% gamesnot enough data
Medy Wurth + Janice Wilkinson404 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.

Mandi Clift
27W–26L career · no lines in 2022
<1%84%16%
3.37
3
Cindy Cooke
9W–3L career · no lines in 2022
<1%<1%>99%
3.37
Tamara LeClair
62W–43L career · no lines in 2022
1%92%7%
3.31
Tesha Whaley
13W–11L career · no lines in 2022
1%93%6%
3.30
Kelly Cope
28W–16L career · no lines in 2022
1%94%5%
3.29
Medy Wurth
14W–7L career · no lines in 2022
<1%50%50%
3.00
Michelle Shoemaker
13W–12L career · no lines in 2022
<1%59%41%
2.97
3
Angie Messick
103W–78L career · 7 lines in 2022
<1%70%30%
2.93
Susan Rogers
8W–7L career · no lines in 2022
<1%79%21%
2.89
Janice Wilkinson
11W–2L career · no lines in 2022
<1%80%20%
2.89
Lee Farley
8W–10L career · no lines in 2022
2%94%4%
2.77
3
Gayle Taylordean
10W–28L career · no lines in 2022
8%91%1%
2.68
Mariann Van Ryen
121W–99L career · 6 lines in 2022
13%87%<1%
2.65
Linda Shuster
19W–24L career · no lines in 2022
18%82%<1%
2.62

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.