Teams

Apollo - Glenville Lake

2026 Sandhills Summer Singles Adult 40 & over · 3.0 Adult Women

7 players · average NTRP 3.00 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2026-07-28vs Jones - Glenville LakeLost 02
L#1 SinglesElizabeth Abresch vs Melissa Bieniek7-5, 4-6, 0-1
L#3 SinglesDenise Bauer Frazier vs Barbara Freidt6-1, 1-6, 0-1
2026-07-26vs Jones - Glenville LakeWon 20
W#1 SinglesElizabeth Abresch vs Melissa Bieniek3-6, 6-2, 1-0
W#3 SinglesNancy Diaz vs Betty Peterson6-4, 6-4
2026-07-19vs Jones - Glenville LakeWon 20
W#2 SinglesAmanda Klinck vs Angela Daniel6-2, 6-1
W#3 SinglesNancy Diaz vs Mari-Newton Dixon6-2, 7-5
2026-07-01vs Jones - Glenville LakeWon 20
W#1 SinglesLydia Apollo vs Angela Daniel6-3, 6-4
W#3 SinglesCyndi Levine vs Betty Peterson6-1, 6-1
2026-06-28Won 20
W#1 SinglesElizabeth Abresch vs Sarah Hallock6-0, 6-3
W#2 SinglesHeather Sisk vs Theresa Jones6-3, 6-2
2026-06-21vs Jones - Glenville LakeWon 30
W#1 SinglesHeather Sisk vs Barbara Freidt6-3, 6-4
W#2 SinglesDenise Bauer Frazier vs Theresa Jones6-2, 7-5
W#3 SinglesCyndi Levine vs Betty Peterson6-3, 6-4
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 Adult Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Apollo - Glenville Lake5112613136
2Jones - Glenville Lake1561229198

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 2.77 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.

2.85
Nancy Diaz
usually #3 Singles 100% · published
2.84
Amanda Klinck
usually #2 Singles 100% · published 3
2.82
Elizabeth Abresch
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
2.77
Lydia Apollo
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 3
2.77
Cyndi Levine
usually #3 Singles 100% · published 3
2.70
Denise Bauer Frazier
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #3 Singles 50% · published 3
2.68
Heather Sisk
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 50% · 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.

Heather Sisk + Lydia Apollo5555% gamesnot enough data
Denise Bauer Frazier + Heather Sisk4446% gamesnot enough data
Denise Bauer Frazier + Cyndi Levine404 matchesnot enough data
Cyndi Levine + Heather Sisk123 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.

Nancy Diaz
5W–5L career · 2 lines in 2026
1%86%13%
2.85
3
Amanda Klinck
3W–3L career · type A · 1 line in 2026
1%87%13%
2.84
Elizabeth Abresch
8W–15L career · 3 lines in 2026
1%89%10%
2.82
3
Lydia Apollo
71W–82L career · 1 line in 2026
3%92%5%
2.77
3
Cyndi Levine
53W–63L career · 2 lines in 2026
3%92%5%
2.77
3
Denise Bauer Frazier
64W–77L career · 2 lines in 2026
8%91%2%
2.70
3
Heather Sisk
51W–69L career · 2 lines in 2026
9%89%1%
2.68

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.