Teams

SShelby.55C-CHCC

2026 Eno River Combo 55 & Over · 55 & Over Combo 7.5 Women

9 players · average NTRP 3.70 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule6 upcoming · 2 played
Sep 11 9:00 AM
Hollow Rock Racquet Club
Sep 18 9:30 AM
Chapel Hill Tennis Club Inc
Sep 25 9:00 AM
Chapel Hill Country Club
Oct 2 9:00 AM
Hope Valley Farms YMCA
Oct 9 9:00 AM
Chapel Hill Country Club
Oct 16 9:00 AM
Chapel Hill Country Club
2026-08-28vs MLong.55.7.5C-DURWon 30
W#1 DoublesSusana Harvey / Laura Davidson vs Lynda Noga / Donna Spero6-2, 6-4
W#2 DoublesDeborah Howard / Diane Koenigshofer vs Donna Holtaway / Caroline Patzer6-4, 7-6
W#3 DoublesBarbara Estay / Melissa Phillips vs Fredia Waters / Yvonne Acker6-3, 6-1
2026-08-21vs NDraughon.55C-YMCALost 03
L#1 DoublesMarybeth Evers / Amy Benton vs Nancy Draughon / Wendy Ruffieux4-6, 6-2, 0-1
L#2 DoublesTina Cunningham / Deborah Howard vs Mary Parker / Eleanor Hoover7-6, 2-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesMelissa Phillips / Frances Wilson vs Susan Fanelly / Deb Lanier4-6, 0-6
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 standings5 teams · 55 & Over Combo 7.5 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1DCorey-CHTC000000
2MLong.55.7.5C-DUR000000
3NDraughon.55C-YMCA000000
4SShelby.55C-CHCC000000
5SFunkhouser.55C-HR0103637

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 3.52 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.

3.95
Barbara Estay
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.87
Amy Benton
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.74
Sarah Shelby
published
3.71
Susana Harvey
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.35
Diane Koenigshofer
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.33
Tina Cunningham
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.29
Frances Wilson
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.22
Monica Jenkins
published
3.21
Marybeth Evers
usually #1 Doubles 100% · 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.

Amy Benton + Sarah Shelby3450% games−5.5% vs expected
Marybeth Evers + Diane Koenigshofer134 matchesnot enough data
Amy Benton + Barbara Estay123 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 · 1 line in 2026
<1%63%37%
3.95
4
Amy Benton
25W–15L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%81%18%
3.87
Sarah Shelby
49W–30L career · no lines in 2026
4%93%3%
3.74
3.5
Susana Harvey
401W–157L career · type A · 3 lines in 2026
<1%7%93%
3.71
3.5
Diane Koenigshofer
35W–39L career · 1 line in 2026
1%84%15%
3.35
Tina Cunningham
11W–12L career · 1 line in 2026
1%88%11%
3.33
Frances Wilson
11W–9L career · 1 line in 2026
2%91%7%
3.29
Monica Jenkins
12W–8L career · no lines in 2026
6%92%2%
3.22
3.5
Marybeth Evers
90W–118L career · 1 line in 2026
7%91%2%
3.21

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.