Teams

El.Copeland40C

2026 Capital Combo 40 & Over · 8.5 Women

12 players · average NTRP 4.33 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule1 played
2026-08-24vs Ch.Higgins40CWon 21
W#1 DoublesLaura Hiller / Tanya Parise vs Lori Petty / Leah Weinberger6-2, 6-2
W#2 DoublesCheryl Mitchell / Elizabeth Copeland vs Hallie Shinn / Sandy Wood6-2, 6-4
L#3 DoublesErin Rankin / Mary Money vs Nancy Pack / Laura McNiven7-5, 4-6, 0-1
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 standings5 teams · 8.5 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Ci.Winzenz40C8.53081366
2Er.Conigliaro40C1142658
3Ch.Higgins40C000000
4El.Copeland40C000000
5Le.Ragsdale40C030918108

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 3.96 estimated across 12 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.

4.50
Danielle Wilder
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 5
4.42
Heather Remley
published 5
4.37
Tanya Parise
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
4.16
Erin Piechocinski
published 4.5
4.14
Erin Rankin
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 4.5
3.95
Elizabeth Copeland
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.85
Laura Hiller
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.69
Mary Money
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.68
Kristal Nelson
published 4
3.65
Terry Dale
published 4
3.62
Emily Uhland
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.48
Emily Culbreth
usually #1 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.

Danielle Wilder + Mary Money15558% games+5.3% vs expected
Danielle Wilder + Heather Remley6358% games+2.9% vs expected
Kristal Nelson + Mary Money251156% games−1.5% vs expected
Danielle Wilder + Kristal Nelson9557% games−2.6% vs expected
Danielle Wilder + Terry Dale9847% games−2.9% vs expected
Danielle Wilder + Erin Rankin5550% gamesnot enough data
Mary Money + Terry Dale2738% gamesnot enough data
Erin Rankin + Mary Money5356% gamesnot 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.

5
Danielle Wilder
229W–112L career · 1 line in 2026
no projection at this level
4.50
5
Heather Remley
298W–153L career · no lines in 2026
no projection at this level
4.42
4.5
Tanya Parise
97W–53L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%81%18%
4.37
4.5
Erin Piechocinski
66W–75L career · no lines in 2026
13%86%1%
4.16
4.5
Erin Rankin
102W–101L career · 2 lines in 2026
16%83%<1%
4.14
Elizabeth Copeland
16W–23L career · 1 line in 2026
65%35%<1%
3.95
Laura Hiller
14W–6L career · 1 line in 2026
1%85%14%
3.85
4
Mary Money
196W–130L career · 1 line in 2026
9%89%1%
3.69
4
Kristal Nelson
132W–73L career · no lines in 2026
9%89%1%
3.68
4
Terry Dale
68W–108L career · no lines in 2026
15%84%1%
3.65
3.5
Emily Uhland
86W–70L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%20%80%
3.62
Emily Culbreth
1W–6L career · 1 line in 2026
57%43%<1%
3.48

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.