Crosier/Shigo 40s 3.5W Tues PM
2026 Piedmont USTA 40 & Over · WOMEN 3.5 40 & Over
15 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.
Schedule8 played
i
Flight standings21 teams · WOMEN 3.5 40 & Over
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1Aikens 40s 3.5W Tues PM | 8 | 0 | 16 | 166 |
| 2Manning 40s 3.5W Tues PM | 8 | 1 | 11 | 179 |
| 3Baker 40s 3.5W Thurs AM | 7 | 1 | 8 | 118 |
| 4Franz/Goy 40s 3.5W Tues PM | 7 | 1 | 12 | 128 |
| 5Clancy 40s 3.5W Thurs AM | 6 | 2 | 17 | 167 |
| 6Winstead/Wilson 40s 3.5W Tues PM | 6 | 2 | 23 | 204 |
| 7Backus 40s 3.5W Thurs AM | 6 | 2 | 28 | 225 |
| 8Mohorn 40s 3.5W Tues PM | 5 | 3 | 21 | 182 |
| 9McPherson/ Allred 40s 3.5W Tues PM | 5 | 4 | 29 | 255 |
| 10Pitts 40s 3.5W Tues PM | 5 | 4 | 33 | 263 |
| 11Womack 40s 3.5W Thurs AM | 4 | 4 | 28 | 222 |
| 12Pool/Berlin 40s 3.5W Thurs AM | 4 | 4 | 32 | 239 |
| 13Crosier/Shigo 40s 3.5W Tues PM | 3 | 5 | 28 | 208 |
| 14Robinson/Gingerich 40s 3.5W Thurs AM | 3 | 5 | 29 | 213 |
| 15Pretzsch 40s 3.5W Tues PM | 2 | 5 | 25 | 198 |
| 16Williams 40s 3.5W Tues PM | 2 | 6 | 40 | 266 |
| 17Adams 40s 3.5W Tues PM | 1 | 6 | 33 | 222 |
| 18Hughes/Ballard 40s 3.5W Thurs AM | 1 | 7 | 36 | 230 |
| 19Olalere 40s 3.5W Thurs AM | 1 | 7 | 37 | 249 |
| 20Crawford/Tao 40s 3.5W Tues PM | 1 | 7 | 39 | 245 |
| 21Linden 40s 3.5W Tues PM | 0 | 9 | 50 | 305 |
Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.
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 3.11 estimated across 15 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.
Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.
| Christa Wykoff + Michele Shigo | 6–1 | 64% games | +6.0% vs expected |
| Aimee Largen + Rhonda Glenn | 2–3 | 42% games | not enough data |
| Robin Crosier + Christa Wykoff | 1–3 | 4 matches | not enough data |
| Robin Crosier + Michele Shigo | 1–2 | 3 matches | not enough data |
| Robin Crosier + Patty Craig | 1–2 | 3 matches | not enough data |
| Rhonda Glenn + Christa Wykoff | 2–1 | 3 matches | not enough data |
| Rhonda Glenn + Sue Blanchard | 1–2 | 3 matches | not enough data |
| Christa Wykoff + Patty Craig | 1–2 | 3 matches | not enough data |
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.
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.