Teams

1-BArmstrong-CHCC

2022 Eno River Adult 18 & Over · 18 & Over Adult 3.5 Women-Day

11 players · average NTRP 3.36 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule7 played
2022-04-25vs 4-EMiller-DFCWon 10
W#1 DoublesMarybeth Evers / Frances Wilson vs Jeanne Murray / Lisa Ennis3-6, 6-1, 1-0
2022-04-13vs 2-ATandradinata-EnoWon 10
W#1 DoublesMonica Jenkins / Marybeth Evers vs Devon Siege / Kimberly Roda6-2, 6-4
2022-04-04Won 10
W#1 SinglesMarybeth Evers vs Elisabeth Miller6-1, 6-4
2022-03-28vs 3-DHostetler-HRWon 10
W#1 SinglesMarybeth Evers vs Jaime Parker6-3, 2-6, 1-0
2022-03-15vs 4-EMiller-DFCWon 10
W#2 DoublesMarybeth Evers / Kristina Vrabel vs Darlene Williams / Susan Alden6-1, 2-6, 1-0
2022-02-28vs 3-DHostetler-HRWon 10
W#1 SinglesMarybeth Evers vs Kateri Hoekstra6-3, 6-3
2022-02-21vs 2-ATandradinata-EnoLost 01
L#1 DoublesMarybeth Evers / Lee Harris vs Brenda Li / Jami Kim-Rowley3-6, 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 standings for 18 & Over Adult 3.5 Women-Day 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 3.04 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.

3.29
Marybeth Evers
usually #1 Doubles 25%, also #1 Singles 25% · published 3.5
3.28
Frances Wilson
published 3.5
3.25
Monica Jenkins
published
3.16
Allison Worthy
published 3.5
3.06
Lee Harris
published
3.00
Lucy Falk
published
2.95
2.94
Deon Roach
published 3.5
2.92
Kristina Vrabel
published
2.86
Brenda Armstrong
published 3.5
2.76
Christy Bowman
published 3
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.

Lee Harris + Marybeth Evers2450% games+1.2% vs expected
Monica Jenkins + Carrie Williamson3253% gamesnot enough data
Deon Roach + Christy Bowman033 matchesnot enough data
Lucy Falk + Lee Harris033 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
Marybeth Evers
92W–118L career · 12 lines in 2022
1%93%5%
3.29
3.5
Frances Wilson
22W–15L career · no lines in 2022
2%94%5%
3.28
Monica Jenkins
25W–18L career · no lines in 2022
3%95%3%
3.25
3.5
Allison Worthy
9W–11L career · no lines in 2022
11%88%<1%
3.16
Lee Harris
6W–15L career · no lines in 2022
32%67%<1%
3.06
Lucy Falk
4W–6L career · no lines in 2022
50%50%<1%
3.00
3
Carrie Williamson
31W–29L career · no lines in 2022
<1%64%36%
2.95
3.5
Deon Roach
6W–25L career · type A · no lines in 2022
68%32%<1%
2.94
Kristina Vrabel
15W–11L career · no lines in 2022
<1%73%27%
2.92
3.5
Brenda Armstrong
7W–18L career · no lines in 2022
86%14%<1%
2.86
3
Christy Bowman
6W–21L career · no lines in 2022
2%94%3%
2.76

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.