Teams

Benda 18s 4.5 Mixed Wed PM

2026 Piedmont Mixed Doubles 18 · 4.5 Mxd Wed PM

9 players · average NTRP 4.50 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2026-07-28vs Piedmont 18s 4.5 MixedSplit 11
W#1 DoublesKate Meiners / Chris Terrell vs Brad Falvey / Jennifer Mays6-2, 6-4
L#2 DoublesAllison Johnson / Matthew James vs Denise Speight / Tommy Houston3-6, 6-4, 0-1
2026-07-22vs Piedmont 18s 4.5 MixedWon 20
W#1 DoublesMatthew James / Kate Meiners vs Brad Falvey / Jennifer Mays6-0, 6-3
W#2 DoublesMelissa Agner / Michael Parker vs Denise Speight / Ryan Ingram6-3, 6-3
2026-07-14vs Piedmont 18s 4.5 MixedWon 30
W#1 DoublesAllison Johnson / Matt Hughes vs Mason Norman / Jennifer Mays6-4, 6-3
W#2 DoublesKajsa Gedlitschka / Jack Oldis vs Brad Falvey / Morgan Danford6-7, 6-1, 1-0
W#3 DoublesAnnabel Weyand Norman / Matthew James vs Jane Owens / Tommy Houston6-4, 6-2
2026-06-21vs Piedmont 18s 4.5 MixedWon 21
L#1 DoublesMelissa Agner / Matt Hughes vs Tommy Houston / Morgan Danford6-7, 6-7
W#2 DoublesKajsa Gedlitschka / Jack Oldis vs Ryan Ingram / Denise Speight6-3, 3-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesNancy Benda / Michael Parker vs Lauren Ivey / Josue Sanchez6-1, 6-2
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 4.5 Mxd Wed PM 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 4.38 estimated across 7 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.

4.57
Nancy Benda
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
4.49
Matt Hughes
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
4.38
Annabel Weyand Norman
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 4.5
4.37
Melissa Agner
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
4.34
Jack Oldis
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
4.26
Kate Meiners
usually #3 Doubles 43%, also #1 Doubles 43% · published
Chris Terrell
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
4.24
Matthew James
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 4.5
Kajsa Gedlitschka
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
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.

Nancy Benda
10W–4L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%31%69%
4.57
Matt Hughes
34W–8L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%54%46%
4.49
4.5
Annabel Weyand Norman
29W–8L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%83%17%
4.38
Melissa Agner
19W–4L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%85%15%
4.37
4.5
Jack Oldis
8W–3L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%88%11%
4.34
Kate Meiners
24W–15L career · 7 lines in 2026
2%95%3%
4.26
4.5
Chris Terrell
1W–0L career · type S · 1 line in 2026
not enough data
4.5
Matthew James
67W–60L career · 3 lines in 2026
3%94%2%
4.24
Kajsa Gedlitschka
4W–2L career · 2 lines in 2026
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.