Teams

Cordes

2026 NO Southern Combo 40 & Over - Women Day · 8.5 NO (40&O) Women Day

10 players · average NTRP 4.12 / LOUISIANA

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2026-09-01vs MCC 40+ 8.5 dayLost 02
L#1 DoublesAmy Farnsworth / Katherine Saulsbury vs Ann Melius / Megan Jaynes1-6, 6-4, 0-1
L#2 DoublesElizabeth Cordes / Anne Long vs Kimberly Calamari / Amy Neves6-4, 2-6, 0-1
2026-08-25vs Browne/DrennanWon 21
W#1 DoublesAmy Farnsworth / Kristin Blackwell vs Cheryl Webster / Ashley Morici6-2, 6-2
L#2 DoublesSarah Jackson / Helen Jenkins vs Sara McCall / Allison Hescock1-6, 2-6
W#3 DoublesElizabeth Wooten / Sarah Feirn vs Kathryn Talbot / Charlotte Meade6-1, 6-1
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 standings4 teams · 8.5 NO (40&O) Women Day
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Browne/Drennan000000
2Cordes000000
3Austin 8.5 40 day000000
4MCC 40+ 8.5 day000000

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 9 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.

4.46
Ginny Wirth
published 4.5
4.43
Amy Farnsworth
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
4.29
Elizabeth Wooten
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
4.00
Sarah Feirn
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.86
Elizabeth Cordes
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.81
Helen Jenkins
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.72
3.68
Corinne Marcus
published 4
3.35
Kristin Blackwell
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.

Sarah Feirn + Elizabeth Wooten8465% games+13.1% vs expected
Elizabeth Cordes + Catherine Freeman4171% gamesnot enough data
Kristin Blackwell + Catherine Freeman4161% gamesnot enough data
Sarah Feirn + Catherine Freeman4160% gamesnot enough data
Elizabeth Cordes + Helen Jenkins224 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.

4.5
Ginny Wirth
21W–2L career · no lines in 2026
<1%61%39%
4.46
4.5
Amy Farnsworth
13W–7L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%71%28%
4.43
4.5
Elizabeth Wooten
22W–4L career · 1 line in 2026
1%93%5%
4.29
Sarah Feirn
36W–8L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%50%50%
4.00
4
Elizabeth Cordes
28W–24L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%86%14%
3.86
4
Helen Jenkins
26W–26L career · 1 line in 2026
1%92%7%
3.81
4
Catherine Freeman
27W–12L career · no lines in 2026
4%94%2%
3.72
4
Corinne Marcus
16W–11L career · no lines in 2026
8%91%1%
3.68
3.5
Holly McKenzie Perrier
6W–7L career · no lines in 2026
<1%87%13%
3.35
Kristin Blackwell
13W–6L career · 1 line 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.