Teams

SShelby.T-CHCC

2026 Eno River Tri-Level 55 & Over · 55 & Over 4.0

11 players · average NTRP 3.42 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule9 played
2026-07-29vs MLong.55T-DURWon 30
W#1 DoublesSarah Shelby / Amy Benton vs Yvonne Acker / Dina Golden6-0, 7-6
W#2 DoublesMelissa Phillips / Frances Wilson vs Donna Holtaway / Nancy Sickel6-3, 6-4
W#3 DoublesSarah Sapeta / Lee Wollman vs Mary T Long / Stacy Brehm2-6, 7-5, 1-0
2026-07-17vs VArne-CHTCWon 21
W#1 DoublesAmy Benton / Barbara Estay vs Adrianne Leinbach / Kristin Lahey5-7, 6-4, 1-0
L#2 DoublesLaurie Rechholtz / Melissa Phillips vs Melissa Fitzpatrick / Regina Davis0-6, 6-7
W#3 DoublesSarah Sapeta / Valerie Williams vs Bailey Cook / Mindy Miller7-6, 6-7, 1-0
2026-07-10vs EHoover-YMCASplit 11
W#1 DoublesSarah Shelby / Amy Benton vs Susan Fanelly / Diane Werner3-6, 6-3, 1-0
L#3 DoublesJane Holroyd / Laurie Rechholtz vs Yolanda Deaver / Leslie Jackson1-6, 0-6
2026-07-03vs EHoover-YMCALost 12
W#1 DoublesDeborah Howard / Barbara Estay vs Tammy Sasser / Susan Fanelly6-4, 6-0
L#2 DoublesFrances Wilson / Marybeth Evers vs Susana Harvey / Nancy Draughon1-6, 4-6
L#3 DoublesValerie Williams / Sarah Sapeta vs Yolanda Deaver / Leslie Jackson2-6, 6-4, 0-1
2026-06-26vs VArne-CHTCLost 03
L#1 DoublesDeborah Howard / Barbara Estay vs Adrianne Leinbach / Kristin Lahey0-6, 4-6
L#2 DoublesFrances Wilson / Tina Cunningham vs Celina Morice / Melissa Fitzpatrick3-6, 2-6
L#3 DoublesValerie Williams / Jane Holroyd vs Mindy Miller / Araya Coffey0-6, 1-6
2026-06-12vs MLong.55T-DURWon 30
W#1 DoublesSarah Shelby / Amanda Williams vs Donna Holtaway / Beth Clark6-1, 6-1
W#2 DoublesMelissa Phillips / Monica Jenkins vs Nancy Sickel / Dina Golden6-2, 7-6
W#3 DoublesSarah Sapeta / Valerie Williams vs N/A6-0, 6-0
2026-06-09vs EHoover-YMCALost 03
L#1 DoublesDeborah Howard / Amy Benton vs Nannette Goodwin / Diane Werner4-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesMonica Jenkins / Marybeth Evers vs Deb Lanier / Adrienne Todd5-7, 1-6
L#3 DoublesJane Holroyd / Lee Wollman vs Kellianne White / Leslie Jackson2-6, 2-6
2026-06-08vs MLong.55T-DURSplit 11
W#1 DoublesDeborah Howard / Amy Benton vs Kimberly Donica / Lisa Montague4-6, 6-2, 1-0
L#3 DoublesJane Holroyd / Valerie Williams vs Mary T Long / Stacy Brehm2-6, 1-6
2026-06-05vs VArne-CHTCLost 12
L#1 DoublesSarah Shelby / Amanda Williams vs Dayna Kelly / Christa McGill4-6, 6-7
W#2 DoublesMarybeth Evers / Tina Cunningham vs Celina Morice / Beth Spinarski6-4, 6-4
L#3 DoublesJane Holroyd / Lee Wollman vs Sarah Ederle / Araya Coffey1-6, 5-7
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 55 & Over 4.0 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 3.22 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.

3.95
Barbara Estay
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.87
Amy Benton
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.74
Sarah Shelby
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.33
Tina Cunningham
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.29
Frances Wilson
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.22
Monica Jenkins
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.21
Marybeth Evers
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
2.85
Laurie Rechholtz
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3
2.77
Sarah Sapeta
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.59
Jane Holroyd
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.55
Lee Wollman
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
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.

Jane Holroyd + Lee Wollman1533% games+0.3% vs expected
Amy Benton + Sarah Shelby3450% games−5.5% vs expected
Lee Wollman + Sarah Sapeta5252% gamesnot enough data
Marybeth Evers + Sarah Sapeta404 matchesnot enough data
Laurie Rechholtz + Sarah Sapeta303 matchesnot enough data
Amy Benton + Barbara Estay123 matchesnot enough data
Lee Wollman + Marybeth Evers033 matchesnot enough data
Marybeth Evers + Sarah Shelby303 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.

4
Barbara Estay
88W–53L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%63%37%
3.95
4
Amy Benton
25W–15L career · 5 lines in 2026
<1%81%18%
3.87
Sarah Shelby
49W–30L career · 4 lines in 2026
4%93%3%
3.74
Tina Cunningham
11W–12L career · 2 lines in 2026
1%88%11%
3.33
Frances Wilson
11W–9L career · 3 lines in 2026
2%91%7%
3.29
Monica Jenkins
12W–8L career · 2 lines in 2026
6%92%2%
3.22
3.5
Marybeth Evers
90W–118L career · 3 lines in 2026
7%91%2%
3.21
3
Laurie Rechholtz
40W–51L career · 2 lines in 2026
1%85%14%
2.85
3
Sarah Sapeta
95W–89L career · 4 lines in 2026
3%92%5%
2.77
Jane Holroyd
4W–18L career · 5 lines in 2026
27%73%<1%
2.59
3
Lee Wollman
47W–111L career · 3 lines in 2026
35%65%<1%
2.55

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.