Teams

Farley/Walters 3.0 55 Thurs

2023 Piedmont USTA 55 & Over · WOMEN 3.0 55 & Over

12 players · average NTRP 3.00 / 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 →
Schedule6 played
2023-05-04vs Redding 3.0 55s Thurs PMWon 10
W#1 DoublesCindy Cooke / Mariann Van Ryen vs Rose Chrismon / Susan Bailey6-3, 7-5
2023-04-20Won 10
W#3 DoublesTerrie Brown / Mariann Van Ryen vs N/A6-0, 6-0
2023-04-13vs Gibbons 3.0W 55 ThursWon 10
W#1 DoublesAngie Messick / Mariann Van Ryen vs Sandra Simpkins / Meghan Flynn6-2, 6-0
2023-03-23vs Shivaji/Selley 3.0 55 ThursWon 10
W#3 DoublesAngie Messick / Janice Wilkinson vs Sherri Koenig / Renuka Shivaji6-4, 6-2
2023-03-16Won 10
W#3 DoublesAngie Messick / Mariann Van Ryen vs Joan Johnson / Laura Reilly6-3, 6-2
2023-03-09vs Gibbons 3.0W 55 ThursWon 10
W#1 DoublesAngie Messick / Mariann Van Ryen vs Meghan Flynn / Sandra Simpkins6-0, 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 3.0 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 2.81 estimated across 11 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.

3.37
Cindy Cooke
published 3
3.00
Medy Wurth
published
2.93
Angie Messick
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3
2.89
Janice Wilkinson
published
2.88
Laura Walters
published
2.77
Lee Farley
published
2.68
Gayle Taylordean
published 3
2.65
Mariann Van Ryen
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #3 Doubles 40% · published
2.62
Linda Shuster
published
2.59
Terrie Brown
published
2.58
Betsy Wood
published 3
Sharon Braxton
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.

Angie Messick + Mariann Van Ryen201555% games−9.7% vs expected
Angie Messick + Cindy Cooke4169% gamesnot enough data
Medy Wurth + Janice Wilkinson404 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
Cindy Cooke
9W–3L career · no lines in 2023
<1%<1%>99%
3.37
Medy Wurth
14W–7L career · no lines in 2023
<1%50%50%
3.00
3
Angie Messick
103W–78L career · 4 lines in 2023
<1%70%30%
2.93
Janice Wilkinson
11W–2L career · no lines in 2023
<1%80%20%
2.89
Laura Walters
13W–3L career · no lines in 2023
<1%82%17%
2.88
Lee Farley
8W–10L career · no lines in 2023
2%94%4%
2.77
3
Gayle Taylordean
10W–28L career · no lines in 2023
8%91%1%
2.68
Mariann Van Ryen
121W–99L career · 5 lines in 2023
13%87%<1%
2.65
Linda Shuster
19W–24L career · no lines in 2023
18%82%<1%
2.62
Terrie Brown
1W–14L career · no lines in 2023
23%76%<1%
2.59
3
Betsy Wood
4W–8L career · no lines in 2023
27%73%<1%
2.58
Sharon Braxton
3W–2L career · no lines in 2023
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.