Teams

9.0 Mount Lebanon

Adult 55 & Over · 9.0 Women

10 players · average NTRP 4.25 / ALLEGHENY MNTN.

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2026-08-29vs Highland ParkLost 02
L#1 DoublesLinda Trevenen / Carla Babe vs Melissa King / Stephanie Crowley1-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesCathy Chi / Kathy Radick vs Amy Ayers / Katie Rogers5-7, 2-5
2026-07-26vs Highland ParkLost 03
L#1 DoublesLinda Trevenen / Holly Chomyn vs Stephanie Crowley / Kirsten Rydstrom6-3, 2-6, 0-1
L#2 DoublesKristen Campbell / Christine Klions vs Melissa King / Rajeeta Bazaz4-6, 4-6
L#3 DoublesTyrene Mckolosky / Marion Hughes vs Linda van Roosmalen / Julie Lichtenstein2-6, 7-5, 0-1
2026-07-12vs Highland ParkLost 12
L#1 DoublesHolly Chomyn / Linda Trevenen vs Rajeeta Bazaz / Kirsten Rydstrom6-3, 3-6, 0-1
W#2 DoublesCathy Chi / Kathy Radick vs Linda van Roosmalen / Amy Ayers7-5, 4-3
L#3 DoublesChristine Klions / Tyrene Mckolosky vs Julie Lichtenstein / Katie Rogers1-6, 5-7
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 standings1 teams · 9.0 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
19.0 Mount Lebanon02151065

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 3.92 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.

4.31
Holly Chomyn
usually #2 Doubles 40%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published 4.5
3.99
Lesley Williams
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
3.95
Kathy Radick
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.91
Cathy Chi
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
3.90
Carla Babe
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.81
Christine Klions
usually #2 Doubles 40%, also #3 Doubles 30% · published 4
3.79
Linda Trevenen
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.66
Marion Hughes
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
Kristen Campbell
published
Tyrene Mckolosky
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 29% · 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.

Christine Klions + Linda Trevenen5352% games−1.8% vs expected
Kathy Radick + Cathy Chi61044% games−6.1% vs expected
Tyrene Mckolosky + Christine Klions8163% gamesnot enough data
Tyrene Mckolosky + Linda Trevenen404 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.

4.5
Holly Chomyn
10W–3L career · type S · 5 lines in 2026
1%92%7%
4.31
Lesley Williams
42W–24L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%53%47%
3.99
Kathy Radick
36W–56L career · 2 lines in 2026
66%34%<1%
3.95
4.5
Cathy Chi
38W–17L career · 2 lines in 2026
75%25%<1%
3.91
4
Carla Babe
50W–50L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%77%23%
3.90
4
Christine Klions
87W–80L career · 10 lines in 2026
1%92%7%
3.81
Linda Trevenen
54W–61L career · 9 lines in 2026
1%93%6%
3.79
Marion Hughes
18W–24L career · 3 lines in 2026
10%89%<1%
3.66
Kristen Campbell
56W–21L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Tyrene Mckolosky
65W–16L career · 14 lines 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.