Teams

Je.Wolborsky40S

2024 Capital Singles 40 & Over · 3.0 Women

8 players · average NTRP 2.92 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule10 played
2024-07-27vs La.McRee40SSplit 11
W#2 SinglesJennifer Wolborsky vs Molly Kuefel6-3, 6-0
L#3 SinglesJill Wolborsky vs Kristen Duke2-6, 0-6
2024-07-25Won 20
W#2 SinglesMichelle Staub vs N/A6-0, 6-0
W#3 SinglesJill Wolborsky vs N/A6-0, 6-0
2024-07-13vs He.McCann40SWon 10
W#2 SinglesJulie Newson vs Lindsay Bass6-3, 7-6
2024-07-12vs Su.Starnes40SSplit 11
L#1 SinglesJennifer Wolborsky vs Liz Arcos2-6, 3-6
W#2 SinglesJill Dykes vs Ana Maria Allessi6-4
2024-06-29vs Sa.Overholser40SLost 01
L#2 SinglesJulie Newson vs Mary Zimardo0-6, 0-6
2024-06-22vs La.McRee40SWon 10
W#3 SinglesJill Dykes vs Lanier McRee6-2, 6-2
2024-06-15vs Da.Rusnak40SLost 02
L#2 SinglesJulie Newson vs Amy Cagle0-6, 2-6
L#3 SinglesJill Wolborsky vs Veronica Glass3-6, 4-6
2024-06-15Lost 01
L#1 SinglesMichelle Staub vs Stephanie Lee5-7, 3-6
2024-06-08vs He.McCann40SLost 02
L#2 SinglesMichelle Staub vs Dr Amy Linder1-6, 1-6
L#3 SinglesJill Wolborsky vs Heidi McCann3-6, 2-6
2024-05-31vs Sa.Overholser40SLost 01
L#2 SinglesMichelle Staub vs Margaret Ann Gonella0-6, 0-6
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 3.0 Women 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 2.74 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.

2.98
Julie Newson
usually #2 Singles 100% · published 3
2.94
Jennifer Wolborsky
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 50% · published 3
2.92
Lora Barnett
published
2.81
Jill Dykes
usually #3 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 50% · published 3
2.81
Heather Hofmann
published
2.64
Carol Fielitz
published 3
2.62
Michelle Staub
usually #2 Singles 75%, also #1 Singles 25% · published 3
2.23
Jill Wolborsky
usually #3 Singles 100% · published 2.5
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.

Jill Wolborsky + Jennifer Wolborsky4448% gamesnot enough data
Jill Dykes + Jennifer Wolborsky4255% gamesnot 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
Julie Newson
70W–78L career · 3 lines in 2024
<1%55%45%
2.98
3
Jennifer Wolborsky
172W–236L career · 2 lines in 2024
<1%68%32%
2.94
Lora Barnett
17W–11L career · no lines in 2024
<1%71%28%
2.92
3
Jill Dykes
57W–50L career · 2 lines in 2024
1%90%9%
2.81
Heather Hofmann
6W–8L career · no lines in 2024
1%90%9%
2.81
3
Carol Fielitz
2W–2L career · no lines in 2024
16%84%1%
2.64
3
Michelle Staub
53W–90L career · 4 lines in 2024
20%79%<1%
2.62
2.5
Jill Wolborsky
40W–101L career · 4 lines in 2024
0%97%3%
2.23

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.