Teams

Chance 55s 3.5W Wed PM

2025 Piedmont USTA 55 & Over · WOMEN 3.5 55 & Over

11 players · average NTRP 3.33 / NORTH CAROLINA

No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2025-04-30vs Michaels 55s 3.5W Wed PMWon 30
W#1 DoublesMissy Chance / Suzanne Johnson vs Katharina Welborn / Terrie Brown6-1, 6-3
W#2 DoublesBecky Kincaid / Susan Calkins vs Wanda Davis / Sherri Frazier6-2, 6-0
W#3 DoublesVickie Degges / Carol Poling vs Medy Wurth / Nancy Michaels6-1, 6-1
2025-03-12vs Michaels 55s 3.5W Wed PMWon 30
W#1 DoublesBecky Kincaid / Susan Calkins vs Katharina Welborn / Wanda Davis6-0, 6-3
W#2 DoublesMissy Chance / Suzanne Johnson vs Lisa Shy / Sherri Frazier6-3, 2-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesJaime Hendricks / Carol Poling vs Medy Wurth / Terrie Brown7-6, 6-3
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 WOMEN 3.5 55 & Over 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 3.03 estimated across 9 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.

Becky Kincaid
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.24
Pamela Aikens
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.19
Susan Calkins
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.15
Jaime Hendricks
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.12
Vickie Degges
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
3.00
Susan Sinclair
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
2.91
Donna Burick
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.90
Carol Poling
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
2.89
Missy Chance
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
2.84
Beverly Burke
published 3
Jennie Pekarne
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.

Pamela Aikens + Carol Poling4251% gamesnot enough data
Pamela Aikens + Jaime Hendricks123 matchesnot enough data
Susan Calkins + Becky Kincaid213 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
Becky Kincaid
3W–3L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Pamela Aikens
19W–36L career · 1 line in 2025
5%92%3%
3.24
Susan Calkins
6W–6L career · 3 lines in 2025
9%90%1%
3.19
Jaime Hendricks
12W–23L career · 1 line in 2025
15%85%1%
3.15
Vickie Degges
14W–22L career · 4 lines in 2025
20%80%<1%
3.12
Susan Sinclair
1W–6L career · 3 lines in 2025
49%51%<1%
3.00
Donna Burick
31W–33L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%73%26%
2.91
3.5
Carol Poling
14W–18L career · 2 lines in 2025
77%23%<1%
2.90
Missy Chance
13W–31L career · 2 lines in 2025
79%21%<1%
2.89
3
Beverly Burke
0W–5L career · no lines in 2025
1%86%13%
2.84
Jennie Pekarne
6W–4L career · no lines in 2025
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.