Teams

Brown 40s 4.0W Thurs PM

2025 Piedmont USTA 40 & Over · WOMEN 4.0 40 & Over

10 players · average NTRP 3.50 / 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 →
Schedule5 played
2025-05-09vs Adams 40s 4.0W Thurs PMWon 10
W#1 DoublesVirginia Easley / Karyn Efird vs Julie Buchanan / Jill Moore6-4, 6-4
W#1 DoublesPam McAmis / Kathy Pace vs Terri Shantry / Melissa Goodman6-1, 6-1
L#2 DoublesMary Batts / Minerva Loran vs Joy Martin / Lisa Baker2-6, 0-6
L#3 DoublesKathy Brown / Janel Green vs Lynda Guarnieri / Kathryn Michaud3-6, 7-5, 0-1
2025-04-17vs Yates 40s 4.0W Thurs PMWon 10
W#3 DoublesKaryn Efird / Angela Muller vs Jennifer Yates / Andrea Jones7-5, 6-0
2025-04-03vs Beck 40s 4.0W Thurs PMWon 10
W#2 DoublesVirginia Easley / Karyn Efird vs silvina piotti / Kathy Chinnis7-5, 6-1
W#1 DoublesKaryn Efird / Minerva Loran vs Cheryl Bock / Suzanne Johnson6-2, 4-6, 1-0
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 4.0 40 & 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 3.56 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.

3.77
Virginia Easley
published
3.71
Pam McAmis
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.65
Tammy Dickenson
published
3.59
Karyn Efird
usually #1 Doubles 43%, also #2 Doubles 29% · published
3.54
Minerva Loran
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.54
Mary Batts
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.40
Kathy Hedgecock
published
3.31
Kathy Brown
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Angela Muller
published 3.5
Janel Green
usually #3 Doubles 100% · 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.

Kathy Brown + Tammy Dickenson2449% games−9.8% vs expected
Kathy Brown + Virginia Easley2346% 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.

Virginia Easley
24W–18L career · no lines in 2025
3%92%5%
3.77
Pam McAmis
13W–22L career · 1 line in 2025
6%92%2%
3.71
Tammy Dickenson
5W–6L career · no lines in 2025
15%85%1%
3.65
Karyn Efird
256W–113L career · 7 lines in 2025
<1%26%74%
3.59
Minerva Loran
13W–18L career · 1 line in 2025
39%61%<1%
3.54
Mary Batts
30W–18L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%40%60%
3.54
Kathy Hedgecock
23W–12L career · no lines in 2025
<1%<1%>99%
3.40
Kathy Brown
14W–21L career · 1 line in 2025
1%90%8%
3.31
3.5
Angela Muller
1W–2L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Janel Green
17W–10L career · 1 line 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.