Teams

Clancy/Varner TRI55 4.0/3.5/4.0 Thurs

2023 Piedmont Tri-Level 55 & Over · 4.0

15 players · average NTRP 3.33 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
W#3 DoublesJennifer M Riley / Brenda Varner vs Cathy Taney / Monica Medina-Murphy5-7, 6-4, 1-0
2023-07-12vs Bethel TRI55 4.0/3.5/3.0 ThursLost 01
L#1 DoublesShelby Rhyne / Shawn McFarlin vs Jane Davenport / Mary Fowler4-6, 1-2
L#1 DoublesCatherine Tanner / Shawn McFarlin vs Martha Fogleman / Libby Strickland2-6, 6-3, 0-1
W#3 DoublesJennifer M Riley / Brenda Varner vs Susan Wrenn / Monica Medina-Murphy6-2, 6-4
2023-05-25vs Collins TRI55 4.0/3.5/3.0 ThursLost 02
L#1 DoublesTerri Shantry / Shawn McFarlin vs Kimberly Eberhard / Lynne Murray2-6, 4-6
L#3 DoublesBrenda Varner / Wendy Ingle vs Page Kreager / Lauren Collins3-6, 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 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 3.26 estimated across 15 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.

3.79
Shawn McFarlin
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.73
Catherine Tanner
published 4
3.69
Lynn Jacoby
published
3.63
Yvonne Singh
published
3.53
Terri Shantry
published
3.42
Betty Kramer
published 3.5
3.41
Shelby Rhyne
published
3.38
Debbie Clancy
published 3.5
3.26
Judy Thomas
published
3.24
Patty Dutton
published
2.86
Brenda Varner
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.81
Donna Davis
published 3
2.80
Faye Halvorsen
published 3
2.73
Jennifer M Riley
published
2.66
Wendy Ingle
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.

Shawn McFarlin + Catherine Tanner3547% games−4.6% vs expected
Donna Davis + Jennifer M Riley3256% 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.

Shawn McFarlin
184W–155L career · 3 lines in 2023
1%94%5%
3.79
4
Catherine Tanner
41W–39L career · no lines in 2023
4%94%2%
3.73
Lynn Jacoby
8W–7L career · no lines in 2023
8%92%1%
3.69
Yvonne Singh
13W–2L career · no lines in 2023
15%84%<1%
3.63
Terri Shantry
9W–11L career · no lines in 2023
40%60%<1%
3.53
3.5
Betty Kramer
15W–14L career · no lines in 2023
<1%74%26%
3.42
Shelby Rhyne
12W–3L career · no lines in 2023
<1%75%25%
3.41
3.5
Debbie Clancy
32W–30L career · no lines in 2023
<1%83%17%
3.38
Judy Thomas
14W–6L career · no lines in 2023
2%94%3%
3.26
Patty Dutton
19W–23L career · no lines in 2023
3%95%2%
3.24
3
Brenda Varner
138W–88L career · 3 lines in 2023
<1%85%14%
2.86
3
Donna Davis
11W–9L career · no lines in 2023
1%92%7%
2.81
3
Faye Halvorsen
16W–10L career · no lines in 2023
1%93%6%
2.80
Jennifer M Riley
8W–9L career · no lines in 2023
4%94%2%
2.73
Wendy Ingle
6W–12L career · no lines in 2023
11%89%<1%
2.66

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.