Teams

TMcIver/CPurvis (OPRC)

2026 Combo Doubles 40 & Over League · 40 & Over Combo 8.5 Women

14 players · average NTRP 3.94 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule5 upcoming · 4 played
Sep 11 9:30 AM
Raintree Country Club
Sep 18 9:30 AM
vs
Charlotte Country Club
Sep 25 9:30 AM
vs
Olde Providence Racquet Club
Oct 2 9:30 AM
Olde Providence Racquet Club
Oct 9 9:30 AM
Chestnut Square Park
2026-08-28vs MMcKeever/KHillard (Queens)Won 21
W#1 DoublesValorie Ake / Beth Petty vs Logan Foose / Katie Thomas6-4, 6-4
L#2 DoublesMargy Pettit / Cynthia Schumann vs Karen Hillard / Marshall Wyker2-6, 6-7
W#3 DoublesJenny Havens / Mary Parker vs Lindsay Gildea / Lesley Burke6-0, 7-6
2026-08-21vs HPhelps (Bridgehampton)Lost 12
L#1 DoublesSusan Adams / Kristine Evans vs Cyndi Sheeler / Allison Mitchell6-7, 4-6
W#2 DoublesChristina Goldblatt / Jill Marcus vs Heather Hope / Roxanne Kastein7-5, 6-4
L#3 DoublesThanh Nga McIver / Lauren Lewisohn vs Megan Noonan / Kelly Treble3-6, 2-6
2026-08-14vs BDowns (Charlotte CC)Lost 12
W#1 DoublesSuzy Johnson / Cathy Purvis vs Brigid Downs / Connell Pinckney7-6, 2-6, 1-0
L#2 DoublesKristine Evans / Susan Adams vs Spencer Blythe / Carrie Fisher6-4, 4-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesJill Marcus / Mary Parker vs Meredith Chapman / Jennifer Mansfield3-6, 3-6
2026-08-07vs TOrmand/TDries (Raintree)Lost 12
L#1 DoublesValorie Ake / Suzy Johnson vs Vanessa Elias / Jeanette Kantor5-7, 5-7
W#2 DoublesChristina Goldblatt / Cathy Purvis vs Bonnie Sheppard / Brantlee Green7-5, 6-4
L#3 DoublesThanh Nga McIver / Margy Pettit vs Taylor Dries / Tanya Ormand6-7, 4-6
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 standings16 teams · 40 & Over Combo 8.5 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1TGreen/FOno (Chestnut Square)2051335
2AConger/EFarnham (OPRC)2051444
3CPeterson/MSutherland (Life Time)2051443
4ABarton/LThurmond (Queens)2042551
5BDowns (Charlotte CC)2042549
6RSchuler (Queens)1021224
7RKartes/JGrahl (Queens)1142556
8MMcKeever/KHillard (Queens)1133653
9KWainscott/CMcWilliams (OPRC)1133761
10HShaw (OPRC)1124860
11TOrmand/TDries (Raintree)1124871
12TBrooks (Charlotte Tennis)0224962
13TMcIver/CPurvis (OPRC)0224971
14BMarthinsen (WSRC)02151171
15MMiller/BHartman (Myers Park)02151174
16SReynolds (Queens)02151171

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 3.67 estimated across 13 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.

4.04
Gabi Gorelick
published
3.91
Suzy Johnson
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
3.90
Cathy Purvis
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.76
Christina Goldblatt
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.75
Jenny Havens
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
Cynthia Schumann
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.73
Valorie Ake
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.71
Beth Petty
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.64
Jill Marcus
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
3.57
Susan Adams
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.56
Margy Pettit
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.48
Kristine Evans
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.44
Mary Parker
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.19
Thanh Nga McIver
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
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.

Kristine Evans + Valorie Ake5749% games−11.0% vs expected
Cathy Purvis + Thanh Nga McIver41045% gamesnot enough data
Jenny Havens + Margy Pettit1439% gamesnot enough data
Valorie Ake + Suzy Johnson4159% gamesnot enough data
Jill Marcus + Kristine Evans044 matchesnot enough data
Kristine Evans + Beth Petty224 matchesnot enough data
Cathy Purvis + Margy Pettit123 matchesnot enough data
Susan Adams + Kristine Evans033 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.

Gabi Gorelick
4W–1L career · no lines in 2026
39%61%<1%
4.04
Suzy Johnson
35W–14L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%74%26%
3.91
4
Cathy Purvis
59W–47L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%76%23%
3.90
4
Christina Goldblatt
79W–56L career · 2 lines in 2026
3%93%4%
3.76
4
Jenny Havens
77W–28L career · 1 line in 2026
4%93%4%
3.75
4
Cynthia Schumann
0W–1L career · 1 line in 2026
not enough data
4
Valorie Ake
67W–48L career · 2 lines in 2026
5%92%3%
3.73
4
Beth Petty
7W–4L career · 1 line in 2026
7%91%2%
3.71
Jill Marcus
35W–43L career · 2 lines in 2026
16%84%1%
3.64
Susan Adams
14W–31L career · 2 lines in 2026
30%70%<1%
3.57
4
Margy Pettit
51W–73L career · 2 lines in 2026
33%67%<1%
3.56
Kristine Evans
48W–71L career · 2 lines in 2026
55%45%<1%
3.48
Mary Parker
3W–9L career · 2 lines in 2026
66%34%<1%
3.44
3.5
Thanh Nga McIver
46W–75L career · 2 lines in 2026
9%90%1%
3.19

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.