Teams

Net Chics

2026 Tri Level 55 and Above · Womens 3.0

11 players · average NTRP 3.50 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2026-03-01vs walnut creek ccWon 30
W#1 DoublesDenise Wells / Doris Smith vs Susan Johnson / Terrye Light6-0, 6-3
W#2 DoublesSandy Phillips / Tracy Wilkinson vs Tanya Hawkins / Pam Cunningham6-4, 6-2
W#3 DoublesSusan Hardison / Annita Best vs Alice Hunter / Jil Young6-1, 6-1
2026-03-01vs WhitleyWon 21
L#1 DoublesDoris Smith / Denise Wells vs Missy Barrow / Michele Mayo6-4, 3-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesLynn Easley / Sandy Phillips vs Kelly Whitley / Leslie Rogers6-2, 6-2
W#3 DoublesSusan Hardison / Annita Best vs Tina Brandalik / Paige Anderson6-1, 6-4
2026-02-28vs walnut creek ccWon 30
W#1 DoublesDenise Wells / Marsha Pierson vs Susan Johnson / Pam Cunningham6-0, 6-1
W#2 DoublesSandy Phillips / Lynn Easley vs Tanya Hawkins / Sharon Crawford6-2, 6-0
W#3 DoublesAnnita Best / Kathryn Custer vs Alice Hunter / Terrye Light6-1, 6-1
2026-02-28vs Emerald ServivorsWon 21
W#1 DoublesMarsha Pierson / Doris Smith vs Susan Elmore / Marie Tingle6-2, 6-1
L#2 DoublesDebra Johann / Tracy Wilkinson vs Lisa Zurawski / Susan Moore6-3, 6-7, 0-1
W#3 DoublesSusan Hardison / Kathryn Custer vs Yvonne Kleiman / Luann Scruggs4-6, 7-6, 1-0
2026-02-28vs WhitleyWon 30
W#1 DoublesDoris Smith / Denise Wells vs Missy Barrow / Suzan Martin0-6, 6-3, 1-0
W#2 DoublesSandy Phillips / Lynn Easley vs Azita Movahed / Margaret Boles6-4, 6-0
W#3 DoublesAnnita Best / Susan Hardison vs Tina Brandalik / Paige Anderson6-2, 6-0
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 standings4 teams · Womens 3.0
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Net Chics50132676
2Whitley328717128
3Emerald Servivors136614112
4walnut creek cc0401224144

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 3.22 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.

3.54
Denise Wells
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.50
Doris Smith
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.42
Lynn Easley
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.32
Sandy Phillips
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.30
Marsha Pierson
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.15
Debra Johann
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.13
Mariana Goldstein
published
3.13
Kimberly Dunwiddie
published
3.03
Annita Best
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.97
Susan Hardison
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.89
Kathryn Custer
usually #3 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.

Susan Hardison + Annita Best9176% games+10.5% vs expected
Lynn Easley + Sandy Phillips9166% games+9.5% vs expected
Debra Johann + Kimberly Dunwiddie404 matchesnot enough data
Denise Wells + Doris Smith314 matchesnot enough data
Sandy Phillips + Mariana Goldstein404 matchesnot enough data
Susan Hardison + Kathryn Custer213 matchesnot enough data
Susan Hardison + Sandy Phillips303 matchesnot enough data
Debra Johann + Kathryn Custer303 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
Denise Wells
17W–10L career · 4 lines in 2026
37%63%<1%
3.54
Doris Smith
23W–6L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%<1%>99%
3.50
Lynn Easley
19W–5L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%<1%>99%
3.42
Sandy Phillips
46W–21L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%1%99%
3.32
Marsha Pierson
8W–4L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%2%98%
3.30
3.5
Debra Johann
22W–14L career · 1 line in 2026
15%85%1%
3.15
Mariana Goldstein
30W–20L career · no lines in 2026
17%83%<1%
3.13
Kimberly Dunwiddie
6W–4L career · no lines in 2026
18%82%<1%
3.13
3
Annita Best
30W–8L career · type A · 4 lines in 2026
<1%40%60%
3.03
Susan Hardison
33W–9L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%57%43%
2.97
Kathryn Custer
13W–1L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%79%21%
2.89

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.