Teams

RN-BENDALL

2025 · 2026 MATA USTA Adult 18 & Over - Fall

13 players · average NTRP 3.67 / GEORGIA

View scouting list →
Schedule
Flight standings2 teams · 2026 MATA USTA Adult 18 & Over - Fall
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1MATA/Marian Wharton40160043
2RN-BENDALL0401616128

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 3.40 estimated across 13 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.

3.67
Joanna Roller
usually #1 Doubles 64%, also #3 Doubles 29% · published
3.62
Tamara Banks
usually #2 Doubles 46%, also #3 Doubles 36% · published
3.54
Patsy Bendall
usually #1 Doubles 61%, also #3 Doubles 17% · published
3.52
Kim Joiner
usually #1 Doubles 44%, also #2 Doubles 28% · published
3.48
Sabine Murray
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 38% · published
3.48
Stacy Byrd
usually #3 Doubles 23%, also #2 Doubles 23% · published
3.42
Catherine Harless
usually #3 Doubles 31%, also #2 Doubles 31% · published 3.5
3.39
Tuti Hawkins
usually #1 Doubles 47%, also #2 Doubles 37% · published
3.33
Teresa Moody
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
3.27
Julie Reynolds
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 17% · published
3.21
Diane Bloodworth
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 32% · published 4
3.18
Alana Alvarez
usually #2 Singles 30%, also #1 Singles 20% · published 3.5
3.17
Frances Clay
usually #3 Doubles 40%, also #1 Doubles 30% · 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.

Catherine Harless + Julie Reynolds3253% games+5.6% vs expected
Patsy Bendall + Julie Reynolds0740% games+1.2% vs expected
Stacy Byrd + Frances Clay3450% games−0.1% vs expected
Joanna Roller + Tuti Hawkins1645% games−10.5% vs expected
Tamara Banks + Diane Bloodworth5259% gamesnot enough data
Kim Joiner + Diane Bloodworth5064% gamesnot enough data
Teresa Moody + Tamara Banks224 matchesnot enough data
Kim Joiner + Sabine Murray314 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.

Joanna Roller
17W–32L career · 14 lines in 2026
11%88%1%
3.67
Tamara Banks
11W–16L career · 11 lines in 2026
20%80%<1%
3.62
Patsy Bendall
27W–39L career · 18 lines in 2026
40%60%<1%
3.54
Kim Joiner
33W–23L career · 18 lines in 2026
<1%45%55%
3.52
Sabine Murray
15W–13L career · 8 lines in 2026
<1%55%45%
3.48
Stacy Byrd
44W–29L career · 18 lines in 2026
<1%56%44%
3.48
3.5
Catherine Harless
16W–21L career · 12 lines in 2026
<1%70%30%
3.42
Tuti Hawkins
50W–47L career · 19 lines in 2026
79%21%<1%
3.39
Teresa Moody
18W–40L career · 18 lines in 2026
89%11%<1%
3.33
Julie Reynolds
14W–25L career · 6 lines in 2026
3%92%5%
3.27
4
Diane Bloodworth
23W–30L career · 25 lines in 2026
98%2%<1%
3.21
3.5
Alana Alvarez
4W–14L career · 9 lines in 2026
10%89%1%
3.18
Frances Clay
10W–30L career · 10 lines in 2026
99%1%<1%
3.17

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.