Teams

NMAC.Efsen

2026 CTRL Tri-Level 55 & Over · Tri-Level 55 4.5

11 players · average NTRP 4.00 / 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 →
Schedule8 played
2026-07-30vs PW.StutesmanSplit 11
W#1 DoublesJette Efsen / Elizabeth Copeland vs Cheryl Reid / Elizabeth Dann7-5, 6-4
L#3 DoublesAdrienne Todd / Maya Ress vs Cindy Orlandini / Julie Durand2-6, 5-7
2026-07-16vs MD.MetcalfLost 12
W#1 DoublesJette Efsen / Geraldine Klauber vs N/A6-0, 6-0
L#2 DoublesJennifer Bricker / Cheryl Mitchell vs Michelle Oury / Liz Radman2-6, 6-2, 0-1
L#3 DoublesPam Cloer / Adrienne Todd vs Merri Metcalf / Christine Reinke4-6, 6-7
2026-07-09vs PW.StutesmanWon 21
W#1 DoublesElizabeth Copeland / Nancy Lacross vs Cheryl Reid / Kathy Channell5-7, 7-6, 1-0
L#2 DoublesCheryl Mitchell / Sarah Shelby vs Kathryn Stone / Charlotte Andreini3-6, 4-6
W#3 DoublesMaya Ress / Jannifer Frazier vs Margo Stutesman / Julie Durand5-7, 6-4, 1-0
2026-06-18vs MD.MetcalfWon 21
W#1 DoublesNancy Lacross / Elizabeth Copeland vs Kathy Lynch / Allison Ostrander6-4, 7-6
W#2 DoublesSarah Shelby / Cheryl Mitchell vs Michelle Oury / Susan Bowser6-0, 6-4
L#3 DoublesVictoria Thio / Jannifer Frazier vs Donna Reiser / Christine Reinke1-6, 4-6
2026-06-11vs PW.StutesmanWon 30
W#1 DoublesJette Efsen / Geraldine Klauber vs Kathy Channell / Charlotte Andreini6-2, 6-4
W#2 DoublesJennifer Bricker / Sarah Shelby vs Bonnie Delmar / Kelly Bendel6-1, 7-6
W#3 DoublesMaya Ress / Adrienne Todd vs Meg McDevitt / Julie Durand4-6, 6-1, 1-0
2026-05-28vs MD.MetcalfWon 21
W#1 DoublesJette Efsen / Geraldine Klauber vs N/A6-0, 6-0
W#2 DoublesCheryl Mitchell / Jennifer Bricker vs Maria Button / Sophea Duke6-1, 6-1
L#3 DoublesVictoria Thio / Pam Cloer vs Christine Reinke / Donna Reiser2-6, 1-6
2026-05-27vs MD.MetcalfWon 21
L#1 DoublesJette Efsen / Elizabeth Copeland vs Jennifer Moore / Marti Bowker3-6, 6-7
W#2 DoublesSarah Shelby / Cheryl Mitchell vs Susan Bowser / Liz Radman6-2, 6-2
W#3 DoublesMaya Ress / Pam Cloer vs Christine Reinke / Merri Metcalf6-4, 3-6, 1-0
2026-05-21vs PW.StutesmanLost 12
L#1 DoublesNancy Lacross / Elizabeth Copeland vs Elizabeth Dann / Cheryl Reid4-6, 6-1, 0-1
W#2 DoublesChristine Watson / Jennifer Bricker vs Charlotte Andreini / Kristen O'Connor6-2, 3-6, 1-0
L#3 DoublesVictoria Thio / Maya Ress vs Margo Stutesman / Julie Durand3-6, 3-6
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 standings3 teams · Tri-Level 55 4.5
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1NMAC.Efsen6215923200
2PW.Stutesman53121228221
3MD.Metcalf1791533240

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 3.72 estimated across 11 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.

4.24
Geraldine Klauber
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
4.17
Jette Efsen
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
4.14
Nancy Lacross
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
4.14
Elizabeth Copeland
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
3.76
Sarah Shelby
usually #1 Doubles 56%, also #2 Doubles 44% · published
3.66
Jennifer Bricker
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.54
Maya Ress
usually #3 Doubles 56%, also #2 Doubles 44% · published 3.5
3.42
Pam Cloer
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.42
Adrienne Todd
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.29
Jannifer Frazier
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.15
Victoria Thio
usually #3 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
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.

Elizabeth Copeland + Nancy Lacross4548% games−4.1% vs expected
Victoria Thio + Jannifer Frazier3548% gamesnot enough data
Elizabeth Copeland + Jette Efsen2348% gamesnot enough data
Geraldine Klauber + Nancy Lacross314 matchesnot enough data
Geraldine Klauber + Jette Efsen303 matchesnot enough data
Maya Ress + Adrienne Todd213 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.

4.5
Geraldine Klauber
149W–91L career · 3 lines in 2026
4%94%2%
4.24
4.5
Jette Efsen
174W–94L career · 5 lines in 2026
9%90%1%
4.17
4.5
Nancy Lacross
56W–43L career · 3 lines in 2026
14%86%<1%
4.14
4.5
Elizabeth Copeland
18W–24L career · 5 lines in 2026
14%86%<1%
4.14
Sarah Shelby
57W–45L career · 9 lines in 2026
2%95%3%
3.76
4
Jennifer Bricker
238W–222L career · 4 lines in 2026
10%89%<1%
3.66
3.5
Maya Ress
123W–53L career · 9 lines in 2026
<1%37%63%
3.54
Pam Cloer
16W–21L career · 3 lines in 2026
73%27%<1%
3.42
3.5
Adrienne Todd
44W–21L career · 6 lines in 2026
<1%74%26%
3.42
3.5
Jannifer Frazier
51W–60L career · 2 lines in 2026
1%93%6%
3.29
3.5
Victoria Thio
95W–101L career · 4 lines in 2026
13%86%<1%
3.15

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.