Teams

Klocek/40s/5.5/PAC

2026 Man · Cov Southern Combo 40 & Over - Women Night

17 players · average NTRP 2.83 / LOUISIANA

View scouting list →

Flight standings for Cov Southern Combo 40 & Over - Women Night 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 2.57 estimated across 4 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.

2.78
Beth Almond
usually #3 Doubles 56%, also #2 Doubles 38% · published 3
2.65
Ellen Sweetman
usually #2 Doubles 43%, also #1 Doubles 32% · published
2.54
Diane Matherne
usually #3 Doubles 62%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.33
Chelsea Clement
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #1 Doubles 20% · published 2.5
Elizabeth Klocek
usually #1 Doubles 44%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
Jennifer Steen
usually #2 Doubles 39%, also #3 Doubles 22% · published
Kathie Daigle
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 36% · published
Kay Byrd
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 29% · published
Kim LeBlanc
usually #3 Doubles 57%, also #1 Doubles 29% · published
Lauren Tagesen
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
Lisa McCoy
usually #3 Doubles 63%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
Loree Doyle
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
Maite Cardoso
usually #3 Doubles 28%, also #1 Singles 28% · published
Megan Levens
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Melissa Jennings
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Nela Otero
usually #3 Doubles 80%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published
Toria Brown
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.

Diane Matherne + Beth Almond7356% gamesnot enough data
Ellen Sweetman + Kathie Daigle4351% gamesnot enough data
Chelsea Clement + Elizabeth Klocek213 matchesnot enough data
Elizabeth Klocek + Kay Byrd033 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
Beth Almond
18W–16L career · 16 lines in 2026
2%92%6%
2.78
Ellen Sweetman
20W–32L career · 28 lines in 2026
14%85%1%
2.65
3
Diane Matherne
16W–21L career · 21 lines in 2026
38%62%<1%
2.54
2.5
Chelsea Clement
10W–15L career · 15 lines in 2026
0%89%11%
2.33
Elizabeth Klocek
8W–18L career · 16 lines in 2026
not enough data
Jennifer Steen
11W–14L career · 18 lines in 2026
not enough data
Kathie Daigle
15W–16L career · 14 lines in 2026
not enough data
Kay Byrd
7W–14L career · 14 lines in 2026
not enough data
Kim LeBlanc
6W–6L career · 7 lines in 2026
not enough data
Lauren Tagesen
1W–6L career · 4 lines in 2026
not enough data
Lisa McCoy
5W–12L career · 8 lines in 2026
not enough data
Loree Doyle
0W–5L career · 3 lines in 2026
not enough data
Maite Cardoso
5W–13L career · 16 lines in 2026
not enough data
Megan Levens
0W–1L career · 1 line in 2026
not enough data
Melissa Jennings
1W–1L career · 2 lines in 2026
not enough data
Nela Otero
3W–17L career · 5 lines in 2026
not enough data
Toria Brown
1W–3L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data

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.