Teams

WNCM Kelleher (Aston Park)

NC Singles League 40 & Over WNC 2026 · 40+ Singles Women 3.0 - Wed PM

8 players · average NTRP 3.00 / NORTH CAROLINA

No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2026-08-05vs WNCB Acker (Aston Park)Split 11
L#2 SinglesSarah Barkley vs Amelia McCormick3-6, 5-7
W#3 SinglesMandy Kelleher vs Bethany Acker6-2, 6-2
2026-07-29vs WNCA Marcus (Black Mt)Won 21
W#1 SinglesPetra Steinbuchel vs Marie Hartye3-6, 6-2, 1-0
L#2 SinglesMelanie Blonshine vs Angela Marcus6-3, 6-7, 0-1
W#3 SinglesMandy Kelleher vs Michelle Conklin6-2, 6-1
2026-07-22vs WNCL Martin (Aston Park)Split 11
W#1 SinglesPetra Steinbuchel vs Laura Martin3-6, 6-1, 1-0
L#3 SinglesKirsten Petersen vs Zephyr Sullivan3-6, 2-6
2026-07-08vs WNCA Marcus (Black Mt)Lost 02
L#2 SinglesDenise Ball vs Michelle Conklin4-6, 2-6
L#3 SinglesKirsten Petersen vs Marie Hartye3-6, 3-6
2026-07-01vs WNCL Martin (Aston Park)Lost 02
L#1 SinglesEmily Richter vs Kirby Finger6-2, 4-6, 0-1
L#2 SinglesMandy Kelleher vs Catharine Connell5-7, 5-7
2026-06-24vs WNCB Acker (Aston Park)Split 11
L#1 SinglesEmily Richter vs Sari Jensen6-3, 2-6, 0-1
W#3 SinglesPetra Steinbuchel vs Maria Briggs6-3, 6-2
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 · 40+ Singles Women 3.0 - Wed PM
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1WNCL Martin (Aston Park)4210818146
2WNCB Acker (Aston Park)4210821172
3WNCM Kelleher (Aston Park)3371124165
4WNCA Marcus (Black Mt)1581022159

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 2.71 estimated across 7 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.

2.89
Emily Richter
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 3
2.82
Petra Steinbuchel
usually #1 Singles 67%, also #3 Singles 33% · published
2.80
Melanie Blonshine
usually #2 Singles 100% · published
2.74
Susanne Loar
published
2.63
Sarah Barkley
usually #2 Singles 100% · published
2.56
Mandy Kelleher
usually #3 Singles 67%, also #2 Singles 33% · published
2.50
Kirsten Petersen
usually #3 Singles 100% · published
Denise Ball
usually #2 Singles 100% · published
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
Emily Richter
12W–12L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%80%20%
2.89
Petra Steinbuchel
4W–3L career · 3 lines in 2026
1%91%8%
2.82
Melanie Blonshine
12W–11L career · 1 line in 2026
1%93%6%
2.80
Susanne Loar
19W–30L career · no lines in 2026
3%94%2%
2.74
Sarah Barkley
1W–6L career · 1 line in 2026
16%83%<1%
2.63
Mandy Kelleher
11W–12L career · 3 lines in 2026
32%68%<1%
2.56
Kirsten Petersen
2W–5L career · 2 lines in 2026
50%50%<1%
2.50
Denise Ball
0W–1L 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.