Teams

GHCC Weekend

Winter Adult 40 & Over WeekEND · Womens 4.0

14 players · average NTRP 3.80 / TEXAS

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2023-02-25vs For The Fun of ItWon 10
W#1 SinglesWendy Parker vs Sandi Pike7-6, 6-0
2023-01-14vs Texas TornadoesLost 01
L#3 DoublesWendy Parker / Lauren Hurst vs Marta Hotz / Brenda Latta2-6, 4-6
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 Womens 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 3.65 estimated across 9 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.

3.99
Amy Harper
published 4
3.82
Eleanor Bowman
published 4
3.74
Wendy Parker
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 50% · published 4
3.74
Julie Whittenburg
published
3.71
Laura Burton
published
3.69
Lauren Hurst
published
3.65
Meredith Paterson
published
3.42
Jacqueline Broaddus
published 3.5
Donna Walker
published 3.5
3.12
Laura Castleberry
published
Melissa Castellani
published
Monica Shields
published
Ryan Lanier
published
Sandra Torres
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.

Eleanor Bowman + Laura Burton7261% games+10.7% vs expected
Donna Walker + Sandra Torres10949% games+4.7% vs expected
Meredith Paterson + Lauren Hurst7554% games−0.1% vs expected
Julie Whittenburg + Laura Burton3751% games−3.8% vs expected
Julie Whittenburg + Jacqueline Broaddus3246% games−7.0% vs expected
Meredith Paterson + Sandra Torres0531% games−11.5% vs expected
Laura Burton + Sandra Torres1544% gamesnot enough data
Eleanor Bowman + Julie Whittenburg314 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
Amy Harper
17W–10L career · no lines in 2023
<1%54%46%
3.99
4
Eleanor Bowman
40W–28L career · no lines in 2023
1%91%8%
3.82
4
Wendy Parker
9W–16L career · 2 lines in 2023
3%94%2%
3.74
Julie Whittenburg
23W–44L career · no lines in 2023
3%94%2%
3.74
Laura Burton
35W–49L career · no lines in 2023
5%94%1%
3.71
Lauren Hurst
72W–40L career · no lines in 2023
8%91%1%
3.69
Meredith Paterson
64W–83L career · no lines in 2023
12%88%<1%
3.65
3.5
Jacqueline Broaddus
24W–35L career · no lines in 2023
<1%73%27%
3.42
3.5
Donna Walker
20W–34L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Laura Castleberry
18W–28L career · no lines in 2023
19%81%<1%
3.12
Melissa Castellani
4W–6L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Monica Shields
1W–9L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Ryan Lanier
24W–45L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Sandra Torres
26W–53L 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.