Teams

Sa.Wood40C

2026 Capital Combo 40 & Over · 7.5 Women

14 players · average NTRP 3.75 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2026-09-02vs St.Luther40CWon 30
W#1 DoublesChunhui Higgins / Tobi Buckley vs Molly Briggs / Sherrie Lefere6-3, 6-0
W#2 DoublesAmber Cagle / Deanna Lape vs Fran Ange / Kim Peters6-3, 7-6
W#3 DoublesChristina Loaiza / Diane Sauer vs Laura Cox / Dana Rawls2-6, 6-4, 1-0
2026-08-26vs Ti.Barrier40CWon 21
W#1 DoublesAmber Cagle / Daphne Poulk vs Lindsey Klein / Sarah Donovan6-2, 6-4
L#2 DoublesSandy Wood / Emily Culbreth vs Stephanie Ferrell / Amanda Lindsay6-7, 6-7
W#3 DoublesChunhui Higgins / Tobi Buckley vs Rachael Yelverton / Kimberly Durland5-7, 6-4, 1-0
2026-08-19vs Ki.Patrey40C7.5Lost 12
L#1 DoublesAmber Cagle / Lori Jensen vs Emily Johnson / Ann Skvarcius4-6, 4-6
L#2 DoublesAmelia Blankenship / Deanna Lape vs Sarah Ganong / Miho Ogura2-6, 0-6
W#3 DoublesChunhui Higgins / Tobi Buckley vs Monica Collins / Deb Lanier6-4, 7-5
2026-08-12vs Sh.Littleton40CWon 21
W#1 DoublesAmber Cagle / Daphne Poulk vs Jennifer Kuzma / Julie Dougherty6-3, 4-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesBarbara Timinskas / Lori Jensen vs Anna Bentley / Karen Hepp6-3, 6-2
L#3 DoublesDiane Sauer / Tobi Buckley vs Alison Kalinowski / Holly Atkinson4-6, 7-6, 1-0
2026-08-05vs As.Burch40CLost 12
L#1 DoublesBarbara Timinskas / Emily Culbreth vs Christine Hughes / Ashley Burch2-6, 4-6
W#2 DoublesXimena Ordonez-Acevedo / Daphne Poulk vs Holly Moore / Haleigh Broglin7-5, 6-2
L#3 DoublesAmber Cagle / Diane Sauer vs Janet Sprague / Yuko Resseguie3-6, 6-4, 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 standings21 teams · 7.5 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Ke.Townsend40C3081456
2Ma.Gonella40C3081454
3Je.Holloman40C3072453
4As.Burch40C3063983
5Al.DeMacy40C2163673
6Ra.Mills40C2163983
7Sh.Littleton40C2163989
8Me.Liner40C2154978
9La.Capps40C1133650
10De.Turner40C1133657
11Al.Sheehan40C1133757
12Ti.Barrier40C12451075
13St.Luther40C12451082
14Sa.Wood40C12451188
15Ki.Patrey40C7.512361290
16Su.Knowles40C0112530
17El.Easley40C0103636
18He.Brewer40C0103636
19St.Rabby40C03271496
20Ve.Glass40C031817107
21Ca.Brawner40C031817108

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 3.56 estimated across 14 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
Chunhui Higgins
usually #3 Doubles 75%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 4
3.88
Ximena Ordonez-Acevedo
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.76
Christina Loaiza
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.72
Amelia Blankenship
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.71
Amber Cagle
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #3 Doubles 20% · published 4
3.69
Barbara Timinskas
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.59
Sandy Wood
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.51
Daphne Poulk
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.40
Meike Schacht
published
3.37
Diane Sauer
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.37
Emily Culbreth
usually #1 Doubles 33%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.33
Deanna Lape
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.25
Tobi Buckley
usually #3 Doubles 75%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.24
Lori Jensen
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
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.

Amber Cagle + Daphne Poulk14359% games+10.7% vs expected
Chunhui Higgins + Ximena Ordonez-Acevedo9359% games+6.3% vs expected
Lori Jensen + Daphne Poulk9557% games+5.1% vs expected
Lori Jensen + Deanna Lape171351% games+4.3% vs expected
Tobi Buckley + Diane Sauer443154% games+1.6% vs expected
Deanna Lape + Daphne Poulk10355% gamesnot enough data
Tobi Buckley + Chunhui Higgins8161% gamesnot enough data
Diane Sauer + Deanna Lape7259% 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.

4
Chunhui Higgins
232W–92L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%54%46%
3.99
4
Ximena Ordonez-Acevedo
169W–79L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%82%18%
3.88
4
Christina Loaiza
8W–6L career · 1 line in 2026
2%94%3%
3.76
4
Amelia Blankenship
7W–11L career · 1 line in 2026
4%94%2%
3.72
4
Amber Cagle
216W–100L career · 5 lines in 2026
6%93%1%
3.71
4
Barbara Timinskas
81W–79L career · 2 lines in 2026
7%92%1%
3.69
Sandy Wood
7W–5L career · 2 lines in 2026
25%75%<1%
3.59
3.5
Daphne Poulk
91W–58L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%47%53%
3.51
Meike Schacht
10W–11L career · no lines in 2026
<1%79%21%
3.40
3.5
Diane Sauer
137W–89L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%84%16%
3.37
3.5
Emily Culbreth
4W–12L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%84%16%
3.37
3.5
Deanna Lape
142W–96L career · 2 lines in 2026
1%90%10%
3.33
3.5
Tobi Buckley
148W–125L career · 4 lines in 2026
3%95%3%
3.25
3.5
Lori Jensen
107W–86L career · 2 lines in 2026
3%94%2%
3.24

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.