Teams

LCTA18/Beiko/MPR

Other 18 & Over Singles League · Women 4.0

8 players · average NTRP 3.88 / SOUTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2026-06-27vs LCTA18/Sullivan-ZANG/LTPDISplit 11
L#1 SinglesJana Upshaw vs Paula Hagopian1-6, 1-6
W#2 SinglesIrina Bordyn vs Patricia Schuster6-4, 6-4
2026-06-13vs LCTA18/Goddard/MaybankWon 21
W#1 SinglesDaina Hill vs Taylor Kent6-3, 6-3
W#2 SinglesCourtney Buley vs Jennifer Weaver6-2, 6-1
L#3 SinglesJana Upshaw vs Katy Hanna1-6, 3-6
2026-06-06vs LCTA18/Sullivan-ZANG/LTPDIWon 21
W#1 SinglesStephanie Leahy vs Jennifer Messerly6-1, 6-0
W#2 SinglesDaina Hill vs Kiana Thatcher6-4, 6-0
L#3 SinglesTatsiana Beiko vs Jackie Cooper2-6, 3-6
2026-05-16vs LCTA18/Goddard/MaybankLost 03
L#1 SinglesCourtney Buley vs Cynthia Zhang1-6, 1-6
L#2 SinglesIrina Bordyn vs Taylor Kent1-6, 1-6
L#3 SinglesJana Upshaw vs Catherine MacKelcan2-6, 2-6
2026-05-09vs LCTA18/Sullivan-ZANG/LTPDILost 12
W#1 SinglesRachel Kohler vs Kiana Thatcher6-3, 6-3
L#2 SinglesDaina Hill vs Sandra To4-6, 1-6
L#3 SinglesTatsiana Beiko vs Jennifer Messerly1-6, 2-6
2026-04-25vs LCTA18/Goddard/MaybankLost 03
L#1 SinglesCourtney Buley vs Annie Bass2-6, 2-6
L#2 SinglesIrina Bordyn vs Cynthia Zhang1-6, 0-6
L#3 SinglesCynthia Hund vs Katy Hanna1-6, 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 standings2 teams · Women 4.0
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1LCTA18/Sullivan-ZANG/LTPDI4212614129
2LCTA18/Beiko/MPR2461224172

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 3.54 estimated across 8 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
Stephanie Leahy
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
3.82
Rachel Kohler
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
3.69
Daina Hill
usually #2 Singles 67%, also #1 Singles 33% · published 4
3.59
Irina Bordyn
usually #2 Singles 100% · published 4
3.43
Tatsiana Beiko
usually #3 Singles 100% · published
3.41
Courtney Buley
usually #1 Singles 67%, also #2 Singles 33% · published 3.5
3.28
Cynthia Hund
usually #3 Singles 100% · published 4
3.10
Jana Upshaw
usually #3 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 25% · 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.

Courtney Buley + Cynthia Hund033 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.

Stephanie Leahy
52W–14L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%52%48%
3.99
Rachel Kohler
34W–15L career · 1 line in 2026
1%91%9%
3.82
4
Daina Hill
37W–40L career · 3 lines in 2026
7%92%1%
3.69
4
Irina Bordyn
46W–60L career · 3 lines in 2026
25%75%<1%
3.59
Tatsiana Beiko
29W–92L career · 2 lines in 2026
71%29%<1%
3.43
3.5
Courtney Buley
17W–42L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%76%24%
3.41
4
Cynthia Hund
0W–8L career · type S · 1 line in 2026
95%5%<1%
3.28
Jana Upshaw
61W–87L career · 4 lines in 2026
23%77%<1%
3.10

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.