Team 5 Volley Girls
2026 NOVA Doubles 40 & Over Winter · NOVA Doubles 40 & Over Winter 3.0 Women
17 players · average NTRP 3.00 / VIRGINIA
No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.
Schedule9 played
i
Flight standings20 teams · NOVA Doubles 40 & Over Winter 3.0 Women
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1Team 18 ANCC Slice Girls | 9 | 0 | 11 | 175 |
| 2Team 14 Simply Smashing | 7 | 2 | 17 | 180 |
| 3Team 7 Causing a Racquet | 7 | 2 | 20 | 212 |
| 4Team 16 Loosely Strung | 7 | 2 | 23 | 220 |
| 5Team 17 Haven Aces 2 | 6 | 3 | 20 | 195 |
| 6Team 10 Tennisity | 6 | 3 | 26 | 219 |
| 7Team 1 Lovely Aces | 6 | 3 | 26 | 246 |
| 8Team 5 Volley Girls | 6 | 3 | 26 | 225 |
| 9Team 19 Slice Girls | 5 | 4 | 24 | 220 |
| 10Team 20 WinW3.0 | 5 | 4 | 28 | 216 |
| 11Team 8 Pop, Fizz, Ace! | 5 | 4 | 30 | 226 |
| 12Team 21 VolleyVixens | 5 | 4 | 32 | 234 |
| 13Team 11 Lucky Spin | 4 | 5 | 33 | 252 |
| 14Team 15 Haven Aces | 3 | 6 | 29 | 223 |
| 15Team 22 Net Results | 3 | 6 | 32 | 248 |
| 16Team 2 Rapid Fire 3.0 | 3 | 6 | 32 | 239 |
| 17Team 4 Net Assets | 3 | 6 | 36 | 243 |
| 18Team 9 Court Queens | 2 | 7 | 38 | 272 |
| 19Team 13 Vienna Vixens | 1 | 8 | 47 | 292 |
| 20Team 12 Deuces Wild | 0 | 9 | 45 | 301 |
Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.
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 2.75 estimated across 17 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.
Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.
| Laura Mattis + Lara Correia Cherem | 4–5 | 48% games | −5.3% vs expected |
| Laura Mattis + Sharon Petri | 2–3 | 48% games | not enough data |
| Laura Mattis + Evy Mort | 2–3 | 45% games | not enough data |
| Michele Brookhart + Cambra Donelson | 2–2 | 4 matches | not enough data |
| Laura Mattis + Cecilia Marincioni | 2–2 | 4 matches | not enough data |
| Karen Gibian + Melanie Bielski | 3–1 | 4 matches | not enough data |
| Patricia Jordan + Evy Mort | 2–2 | 4 matches | not enough data |
| Ellen House + Cecilia Marincioni | 1–2 | 3 matches | not enough data |
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.
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.