Teams

WNCP McClurkin (HRC)

Combo 65 & Over USTA WNC 2026 · 65+ Women 6.5 Combo Mon AM

13 players · average NTRP 3.25 / 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 →
Schedule2 played
2026-08-17vs WNCG Anderson (HRC)Lost 12
L#1 DoublesDeborah Powell / Kathryn Overstreet vs Kristy Owens / Christina Phan1-6, 6-3, 0-1
L#2 DoublesMargaret Peggy Sanders / Brenda Cook vs Dottie Mattern / Heather North6-2, 1-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesCynthia Boyle / Jane Miller vs Gay Anderson / Roberta Heinrich6-3, 6-2
2026-08-10vs WNCW Page (Peachtree)Won 30
W#1 DoublesBrenda Cook / Kathryn Overstreet vs Susan Fitzmaurice / Ann McAndrews6-4, 3-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesCynthia Boyle / Jane Miller vs Laurie Rogers / Betty Hollingsworth6-2, 6-2
W#3 DoublesMarian Wood / Patricia McClurkin vs Ruby Bright / Ronda Champion6-1, 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 standings3 teams · 65+ Women 6.5 Combo Mon AM
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1WNCG Anderson (HRC)2051449
2WNCP McClurkin (HRC)1142540
3WNCW Page (Peachtree)02061273

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 2.96 estimated across 10 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.

3.42
Cynthia Boyle
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.24
Deborah Powell
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.23
Claudia Gavin
published 3
3.20
Patricia McClurkin
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.89
Elaine Liddy
published
2.81
Kathryn Overstreet
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.76
Margaret Peggy Sanders
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.70
Marlene Rau
published
2.68
Barbara Weinland
published 3
2.63
Jane Miller
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
Kendall Pfister
published
Marian Wood
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Susan Lipski
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.

Claudia Gavin + Jane Miller4166% games+20.1% vs expected
Patricia McClurkin + Margaret Peggy Sanders123 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.

3.5
Cynthia Boyle
14W–16L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%73%27%
3.42
3.5
Deborah Powell
26W–25L career · 1 line in 2026
4%93%3%
3.24
3
Claudia Gavin
14W–6L career · no lines in 2026
<1%5%95%
3.23
Patricia McClurkin
5W–4L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%8%92%
3.20
Elaine Liddy
5W–8L career · no lines in 2026
<1%78%22%
2.89
Kathryn Overstreet
5W–8L career · 2 lines in 2026
1%90%9%
2.81
Margaret Peggy Sanders
5W–8L career · 1 line in 2026
3%92%4%
2.76
Marlene Rau
3W–5L career · no lines in 2026
8%90%1%
2.70
3
Barbara Weinland
3W–6L career · no lines in 2026
10%89%1%
2.68
Jane Miller
26W–13L career · 2 lines in 2026
0%18%82%
2.63
Kendall Pfister
0W–2L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Marian Wood
3W–4L career · 1 line in 2026
not enough data
Susan Lipski
9W–5L 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.