Teams

WNCC Flynn (Aston Park)

Combo 40 & Over USTA WNC 2026 · 40+ Women 6.5 Combo Tues

10 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 →
Schedule3 played
2026-08-25vs WNCA Hawes (ARC South)Won 30
W#1 DoublesSarah Bock / Molly Russell vs Andrea Fey / Patricia van Vonno6-3, 6-2
W#2 DoublesRachael Chatham / Suchada Johnson vs Danielle Andrews / Marie Hartye7-5, 6-1
W#3 DoublesColleen Flynn / Ani Kinyon vs Arwen Hawes / Kala White7-6, 7-5
2026-08-25vs WNCA Stark (HCC)Lost 02
L#1 DoublesSusan Lipski / Colleen Flynn vs Kim McKibbin / Anna Stark1-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesSarah Barkley / Laura Martin vs Mary Livesay / Cara Pryor1-6, 4-6
2026-08-18vs WNCH Renfro (Aston Park)Lost 03
L#1 DoublesSuchada Johnson / Laura Martin vs Kelley Stines / Maki Goskowicz1-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesSarah Barkley / Rachael Chatham vs Kate Martin / Tray Shapiro4-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesMolly Russell / Kate Trefzger vs Virginia Scarola / Zsuzsanna Brooks4-6, 6-4, 0-1
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 standings7 teams · 40+ Women 6.5 Combo Tues
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1WNCH Renfro (Aston Park)2060241
2WNCA Hawes (ARC South)1124972
3WNCS Sparks (HRC)000000
4WNC Mason/Lowe (ARC South)000000
5WNCA Stark (HCC)000000
6WNCL Holland (CCA)0112429
7WNCC Flynn (Aston Park)0103635

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 2.91 estimated across 8 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.

3.45
Sarah Bock
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.31
Suchada Johnson
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.04
Ani Kinyon
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
2.78
Kate Trefzger
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.73
Laura Martin
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
2.69
Molly Russell
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
2.66
Colleen Flynn
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 3
2.63
Sarah Barkley
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Olga Nohe
published
Susan Lipski
usually #1 Doubles 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.

Sarah Bock
1W–5L career · 1 line in 2026
64%36%<1%
3.45
Suchada Johnson
14W–4L career · 2 lines in 2026
1%90%8%
3.31
3.5
Ani Kinyon
2W–6L career · type S · 1 line in 2026
38%62%<1%
3.04
Kate Trefzger
25W–11L career · 1 line in 2026
2%92%6%
2.78
Laura Martin
14W–14L career · 2 lines in 2026
5%92%3%
2.73
Molly Russell
7W–7L career · 2 lines in 2026
9%90%1%
2.69
3
Colleen Flynn
22W–12L career · 2 lines in 2026
12%87%1%
2.66
Sarah Barkley
1W–6L career · 2 lines in 2026
17%82%<1%
2.63
Olga Nohe
0W–2L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Susan Lipski
9W–5L 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.