Teams

OBanchik/NO'Brien (Life Time)

2025 Tri-Level 40 & Over League · 40 & Over 3.0

15 players · average NTRP 3.55 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule7 played
2025-07-14vs CDewaele (Springfield)Won 21
W#1 DoublesKim Wojnowich / Emily Weigel vs Maureen Paterson / Debra Schwede6-3, 6-2
L#2 DoublesFelicia Ahn / JoAnn Cho vs Erin Overcash / Wendy Clendening3-6, 3-6
W#3 DoublesOlya Banchik / Madelaine LeBlanc vs Karen Garland / Annmarie Ringle6-1, 6-2
2025-07-07vs KHeidkamp (PCC)Lost 02
L#2 DoublesLatha Baddigam / JoAnn Cho vs Reena Chow / Kate Schumacher4-6, 5-7
L#3 DoublesOlya Banchik / Felicia Ahn vs Mary Kirby / Carla Ackels6-3, 2-6, 1-0
2025-06-30vs MJones/EPease (Life Time)Lost 02
L#1 DoublesEmily Weigel / Emily Breeze Watson vs Colleen Beierwaltes / Rebecca Danguy3-6, 2-6
L#3 DoublesNaomi O'Brien / Madelaine LeBlanc vs Heather Enlow-Novitsky / Kimi Parker6-3, 6-7, 0-1
2025-06-23vs JKilduff/VGray (Sardis)Won 21
L#1 DoublesEmily Weigel / Kim Wojnowich vs Liza Dumler / Emily van Dixhoorn6-4, 4-6, 0-1
W#2 DoublesLatha Baddigam / JoAnn Cho vs Jessica Walker / Chanler Krupa7-5, 6-3
W#3 DoublesNaomi O'Brien / Madelaine LeBlanc vs Valerie Gray / Elizabeth Tabor6-4, 6-1
2025-06-16vs CHobson (WSRC)Lost 12
L#1 DoublesMichelle Crawford / Latha Baddigam vs Sara Applegate / Terri Kimner2-6, 6-4, 0-1
L#2 DoublesKim Wojnowich / Naomi O'Brien vs Sharon Cranford / Cyndie Hobson7-6, 5-7, 1-0
W#3 DoublesLaura Pratt / Reshma Vora vs Kimberly Borans / Heather Taylor7-6, 4-6, 1-0
2025-06-09vs TGallagher/SPierle (WSRC)Lost 12
L#1 DoublesEmily Weigel / Holly Pasut vs Danna Jean Pompeo / Barb Marthinsen2-6, 4-6
L#2 DoublesJenny Wilken / JoAnn Cho vs Tamara Gallagher / Julie Smallwood5-7, 4-6
W#3 DoublesNaomi O'Brien / Madelaine LeBlanc vs Victoria Sofarelli / Gabriela ROY6-4, 6-2
2025-06-02vs JWoodruff (Queens)Won 20
W#2 DoublesLatha Baddigam / Jenny Wilken vs Heather Skelton / Sarah Price6-4, 1-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesFelicia Ahn / Reshma Vora vs Amy Brittain / Christie Garella6-2, 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 standings for 40 & Over 3.0 have not been collected yet. Where we have them we show every team in the flight ranked, with this team highlighted. The crawler is still filling in older seasons and flights.

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 3.47 estimated across 15 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.

4.01
Emily Weigel
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.78
Michelle Crawford
published
3.77
Madelaine LeBlanc
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.53
3.52
Naomi O'Brien
usually #3 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.48
Kim Wojnowich
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.47
Latha Baddigam
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.44
JoAnn Cho
published
3.43
Susan McDonald
published
3.39
Felicia Ahn
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.38
Laura Pratt
published
3.30
Olya Banchik
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.22
Holly Pasut
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.19
Jenny Wilken
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.12
Reshma Vora
usually #3 Doubles 100% · 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.

Naomi O'Brien + Madelaine LeBlanc20273% games+11.3% vs expected
Emily Weigel + Kim Wojnowich9462% games+10.2% vs expected
Jenny Wilken + Olya Banchik9165% games+7.9% vs expected
Olya Banchik + Madelaine LeBlanc11459% games+6.8% vs expected
Michelle Crawford + Emily Breeze Watson201253% games+4.9% vs expected
Olya Banchik + JoAnn Cho5255% games+2.0% vs expected
Felicia Ahn + JoAnn Cho4550% games+1.8% vs expected
Felicia Ahn + Olya Banchik2452% games+1.1% vs expected
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.

4
Emily Weigel
163W–81L career · 4 lines in 2025
<1%47%53%
4.01
Michelle Crawford
28W–17L career · no lines in 2025
2%94%4%
3.78
3.5
Madelaine LeBlanc
108W–19L career · 4 lines in 2025
<1%2%98%
3.77
4
Emily Breeze Watson
24W–16L career · no lines in 2025
40%60%<1%
3.53
3.5
Naomi O'Brien
134W–32L career · 4 lines in 2025
<1%43%57%
3.52
3.5
Kim Wojnowich
117W–52L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%55%45%
3.48
3.5
Latha Baddigam
64W–41L career · 4 lines in 2025
<1%59%41%
3.47
JoAnn Cho
31W–18L career · no lines in 2025
<1%68%32%
3.44
Susan McDonald
17W–13L career · no lines in 2025
<1%71%29%
3.43
3.5
Felicia Ahn
90W–43L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%80%20%
3.39
Laura Pratt
45W–13L career · no lines in 2025
<1%<1%>99%
3.38
3.5
Olya Banchik
107W–57L career · 2 lines in 2025
1%93%6%
3.30
3.5
Holly Pasut
34W–64L career · 1 line in 2025
4%94%2%
3.22
3.5
Jenny Wilken
74W–54L career · 2 lines in 2025
7%92%1%
3.19
3
Reshma Vora
43W–31L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%19%81%
3.12

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.