Teams

MTC - Wilson/Loris

2026 Tri-Level 40 & Over - Mobile · 40 & Over 4.0

13 players · average NTRP 3.80 / ALABAMA

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2026-03-29vs MO - Sasser/HunsaderLost 12
L#1 DoublesJanet Wilson / Brenda Rhodes vs Nicole Hunsader / Micah Brannon2-6, 4-6
W#2 DoublesBE PHETSINORATH / LaSharon DeArmon vs Beth Lowery / Carrys Sasser6-1, 7-5
L#3 DoublesKathleen Rees / Laurel Wallace vs Ginny Mccrory / Lisa Coumanis0-6, 1-6
2026-03-22vs MTC - GrimesLost 12
L#1 DoublesAmber Loris / Leigh Kleinschrodt vs Arlene Volnoff / Ashley DeAndrade6-4, 2-6, 0-1
W#2 DoublesJanet Wilson / BE PHETSINORATH vs Kelly Chism / Beth Mathison6-2, 6-4
L#3 DoublesLinda Bogolin / Laurel Wallace vs Jan Fontenot / Brantley Caldwell4-6, 4-6
2026-03-01vs MTC - Jones 40+Lost 03
L#1 DoublesBrenda Rhodes / Carmelita Mikkelsen vs Alinda McGowin / Savannah Steiner4-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesLaSharon DeArmon / Jamie Lett vs Kristen Roberts / Maureen LaCour2-6, 2-6
L#3 DoublesSusan Eways / Kathleen Rees vs Amanda Jean Tulowitzki / Kimberly Huffty3-6, 5-7
2026-02-22vs Spirit Park - Harrell/WyseWon 21
W#1 DoublesBrenda Rhodes / Marie Klusman vs Alecia Harrell / Cheslie Larkin6-3, 2-6, 1-0
L#2 DoublesJanet Wilson / BE PHETSINORATH vs AnnaLee Wyse / Connie Camboia3-6, 6-1, 0-1
W#3 DoublesSusan Eways / Kathleen Rees vs Shannon Spinks / Kim Pugh6-4, 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 standings4 teams · 40 & Over 4.0
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1MO - Sasser/Hunsader4084990
2MTC - Jones 40+3193995
3MTC - Wilson/Loris134817119
4Spirit Park - Harrell/Wyse044817124

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 3.35 estimated across 13 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.

3.91
Carmelita Mikkelsen
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.84
Brenda Rhodes
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.79
Marie Klusman
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.59
Amber Loris
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.57
Leigh Kleinschrodt
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.49
Cheryl O'Neill
published 3.5
3.48
LaSharon DeArmon
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.41
BE PHETSINORATH
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.23
Jamie Lett
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.92
Kathleen Rees
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.88
Susan Eways
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.87
Laurel Wallace
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.58
Linda Bogolin
usually #3 Doubles 100% · 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.

Linda Bogolin + Susan Eways3259% games+15.1% vs expected
Marie Klusman + Brenda Rhodes12261% games+8.0% vs expected
Carmelita Mikkelsen + LaSharon DeArmon7461% games+3.5% vs expected
LaSharon DeArmon + Jamie Lett9554% games+0.7% vs expected
Amber Loris + Carmelita Mikkelsen7256% games−3.8% vs expected
Susan Eways + Laurel Wallace5746% games−5.7% vs expected
Leigh Kleinschrodt + Carmelita Mikkelsen224 matchesnot enough data
Amber Loris + LaSharon DeArmon404 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
Carmelita Mikkelsen
45W–21L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%74%26%
3.91
4
Brenda Rhodes
61W–27L career · 3 lines in 2026
1%87%13%
3.84
Marie Klusman
40W–14L career · 1 line in 2026
2%91%7%
3.79
4
Amber Loris
25W–20L career · 1 line in 2026
25%74%<1%
3.59
Leigh Kleinschrodt
29W–24L career · 1 line in 2026
31%69%<1%
3.57
3.5
Cheryl O'Neill
25W–10L career · no lines in 2026
<1%53%47%
3.49
LaSharon DeArmon
38W–19L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%56%43%
3.48
3.5
BE PHETSINORATH
37W–28L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%73%27%
3.41
Jamie Lett
51W–35L career · 1 line in 2026
5%92%3%
3.23
Kathleen Rees
18W–9L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%71%28%
2.92
Susan Eways
56W–55L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%81%19%
2.88
Laurel Wallace
35W–44L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%82%18%
2.87
Linda Bogolin
22W–32L career · 1 line in 2026
28%71%<1%
2.58

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.