Teams

LBKU-Kucharski River Run

2026 Lake Combo Doubles 65 & Over · 6.5 Women Sat

11 players · average NTRP 3.31 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule3 upcoming · 2 played
Sep 12 9:00 AM
North Mecklenburg Park
Sep 16 6:30 PM
River Run Country Club
Oct 3 9:00 AM
North Mecklenburg Park
2026-08-29vs LWGO-Goodwin/NMP 6.5 Sat 65+Lost 12
W#1 DoublesCarol Hamel / Cathie Loveless vs Nancy Williams / Brenda Jandebeur6-3, 2-6, 1-0
L#2 DoublesHelen Williams / Barbara Stoner vs Julia Mueller / Kayes Mary Lynn4-6, 6-2, 0-1
L#3 DoublesCheri Thebeau / Barbara Kucharski vs Norma Zitnik / Wendy Goodwin4-6, 1-6
2026-08-19vs LWGO-Goodwin/NMP 6.5 Sat 65+Lost 12
L#1 DoublesJulli Goodwin / Mary Anne Michael vs Nina Archer / Margaret Dittemore3-6, 6-4, 1-0
L#2 DoublesAdriane Ware / Teresa Farson vs Martha Venter / Brenda Jandebeur6-7, 0-6
W#3 DoublesCarol Geisler / Karen Holleman vs Cindy Mexcur / Wendy Goodwin7-6, 6-1
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 standings2 teams · 6.5 Women Sat
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1LWGO-Goodwin/NMP 6.5 Sat 65+1021329
2LBKU-Kucharski River Run0112430

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 2.94 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.

3.33
Carol Hamel
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.18
Carol Geisler
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.16
Julli Goodwin
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
2.96
Adriane Ware
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
2.91
Cheri Thebeau
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
Barbara Kucharski
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
Cathie Loveless
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.65
Barbara Stoner
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.43
Ruthie Naylor
published
Karen Holleman
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Mary Anne Michael
usually #1 Doubles 100% · 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.

Julli Goodwin + Carol Hamel213 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
Carol Hamel
77W–48L career · 1 line in 2026
1%88%11%
3.33
3.5
Carol Geisler
2W–1L career · 1 line in 2026
10%89%1%
3.18
3.5
Julli Goodwin
71W–70L career · 1 line in 2026
13%86%1%
3.16
3.5
Adriane Ware
1W–7L career · 1 line in 2026
61%39%<1%
2.96
3.5
Cheri Thebeau
0W–7L career · 1 line in 2026
75%25%<1%
2.91
3
Barbara Kucharski
0W–1L career · 1 line in 2026
not enough data
3
Cathie Loveless
1W–1L career · 1 line in 2026
not enough data
3
Barbara Stoner
0W–7L career · 1 line in 2026
14%85%1%
2.65
Ruthie Naylor
0W–6L career · no lines in 2026
69%31%<1%
2.43
Karen Holleman
1W–0L career · 1 line in 2026
not enough data
Mary Anne Michael
0W–1L 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.