Teams

Geyer/LHCC/Foothils

2026 Foothills Singles 18 & over · 3.0 Singles Women

6 players · average NTRP 3.00 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule1 upcoming · 5 played
Sep 7 6:30 PM
Lake Hickory Country Club
2026-08-24vs ScheepersVolley/LHCC/FoothillsWon 21
W#1 SinglesHilary May vs Jennifer Beane7-5, 6-1
W#2 SinglesMarianna Geyer vs Ashley Stahlschmidt6-7, 7-6, 1-0
L#3 SinglesJulie Rodeck vs Paula Oliver5-7, 5-7
2026-08-17vs Kim/RB/FoothillsWon 10
W#2 SinglesHilary May vs Shoshana Goshen-Harper2-6, 6-3, 1-0
2026-08-03vs ScheepersVolley/LHCC/FoothillsWon 20
W#2 SinglesHilary May vs Charleyn Mahoney6-4, 6-4
W#3 SinglesJulie Rodeck vs Mollyrose Wright6-3, 6-4
2026-07-27vs Kim/RB/FoothillsLost 03
L#1 SinglesHilary May vs Chloee Dula4-6, 4-6
L#2 SinglesChasity Vonderheide vs Shoshana Goshen-Harper2-6, 1-6
L#3 SinglesRichelle Connor vs Sarita Black1-6, 0-6
2026-06-29vs ScheepersVolley/LHCC/FoothillsLost 12
L#1 SinglesRichelle Connor vs Casey Prince2-6, 0-6
L#2 SinglesChasity Vonderheide vs Carrie Neal0-6, 2-6
W#3 SinglesLinda Schultz vs Mollyrose Wright7-5, 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 standings2 teams · 3.0 Singles Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Geyer/LHCC/Foothils225715113
2ScheepersVolley/LHCC/Foothills133919125

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 2.62 estimated across 6 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.

2.85
Hilary May
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 50% · published 3
2.65
Linda Schultz
usually #3 Singles 100% · published
2.64
Marianna Geyer
usually #2 Singles 100% · published 3
2.58
Richelle Connor
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #3 Singles 50% · published 3
2.53
Julie Rodeck
usually #3 Singles 100% · published 3
2.48
Chasity Vonderheide
usually #2 Singles 100% · 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.

Marianna Geyer + Hilary May81149% games+3.8% vs expected
Julie Rodeck + Hilary May1632% games−6.7% vs expected
Richelle Connor + Marianna Geyer134 matchesnot enough data
Julie Rodeck + Marianna Geyer134 matchesnot enough data
Linda Schultz + Julie Rodeck033 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
Hilary May
79W–88L career · 4 lines in 2026
1%86%13%
2.85
Linda Schultz
9W–14L career · 1 line in 2026
14%85%1%
2.65
3
Marianna Geyer
86W–146L career · 1 line in 2026
15%84%1%
2.64
3
Richelle Connor
74W–137L career · 2 lines in 2026
28%72%<1%
2.58
3
Julie Rodeck
84W–109L career · 2 lines in 2026
43%57%<1%
2.53
3
Chasity Vonderheide
1W–10L career · type S · 2 lines in 2026
56%44%<1%
2.48

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.