Teams

LCTA65/Mock/AshboroughEast

Mixed 65 & Over · Mixed 3.0

11 players · average NTRP 3.08 / SOUTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2024-08-25vs LLAS UPTA65M/Stegall/BrookstoneLost 12
L#1 DoublesFrederick Matros / Susan Mock vs Rickey Bridges / Deborah B Bowyer3-6, 5-7
L#2 DoublesCarol Phipps / Jerry Nomburg vs Earl Claypool / Peggy Rutland1-6, 3-6
W#3 DoublesHenry Nelson / Leslie Basner vs Douglas Wright / Patty Orr6-0, 6-1
2024-08-24vs LLAS UPTA65M/Stegall/BrookstoneLost 12
W#1 DoublesHenry Nelson / Susie Fancher vs Rickey Bridges / Patricia Chapman7-6, 7-6
L#2 DoublesJerry Nomburg / Susan Mock vs Earl Claypool / Carol Cooper2-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesFrederick Matros / Carol Phipps vs Douglas Wright / Patty Orr4-6, 5-7
2024-08-24vs LLAS UPTA65M/Stegall/BrookstoneLost 12
L#1 DoublesHenry Nelson / Susie Fancher vs Rickey Bridges / Deborah B Bowyer1-6, 7-5, 0-1
L#2 DoublesFrank Caston / Carol Phipps vs Earl Claypool / Peggy Rutland3-6, 4-6
W#3 DoublesLeslie Basner / James Simpson vs John Stegall / Therese Woorons6-1, 2-6, 1-0
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 · Mixed 3.0
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1LLAS UPTA65M/Stegall/Brookstone3063774
2LCTA65/Mock/AshboroughEast03361394

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 2.72 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.

3.17
Diane Pastorius
published 3.5
2.89
Leslie Basner
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.78
Henry Nelson
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.76
Stan Mastalerz
published
James Simpson
published 3
2.70
Frederick Matros
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3
2.67
Susie Fancher
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.58
Frank Caston
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.48
Carol Phipps
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.44
Jerry Nomburg
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Susan Mock
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · 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.

3.5
Diane Pastorius
77W–33L career · no lines in 2024
9%90%1%
3.17
Leslie Basner
55W–37L career · 2 lines in 2024
<1%80%20%
2.89
3
Henry Nelson
42W–31L career · 3 lines in 2024
2%94%5%
2.78
Stan Mastalerz
28W–35L career · no lines in 2024
2%94%3%
2.76
3
James Simpson
3W–1L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
3
Frederick Matros
20W–33L career · 2 lines in 2024
6%93%1%
2.70
Susie Fancher
29W–16L career · 2 lines in 2024
10%90%1%
2.67
3
Frank Caston
13W–10L career · 1 line in 2024
28%72%<1%
2.58
3
Carol Phipps
17W–30L career · 3 lines in 2024
58%42%<1%
2.48
Jerry Nomburg
5W–13L career · 2 lines in 2024
67%33%<1%
2.44
Susan Mock
31W–42L career · 2 lines in 2024
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.