Teams

LCTA40/Richards/ MPR

Other 40 & Over Singles League · 40 & over Singles Women 3.0

6 players · average NTRP 3.00 / SOUTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2026-06-07vs LCTA40/Ait/MPRLost 12
L#1 SinglesVirginia Richards vs Heather Lucarelli1-6, 0-6
L#2 SinglesLaura Tharp vs Minhthu Nguyen4-6, 1-6
W#3 SinglesGeorgia Krewson vs Dina Tizzard7-6, 7-5
2026-05-31vs LCTA40/O'Brien/DICLost 12
W#1 SinglesCarly Hara vs Lora Dennis6-2, 6-7, 1-0
L#2 SinglesAlisa Mosler vs Debbie OBrien3-6, 2-6
L#3 SinglesVirginia Richards vs Victoria Ubina-Katzburg3-6, 5-7
2026-05-17vs LCTA40/Godfrey-Jackson/CTCLost 03
L#1 SinglesAlisa Mosler vs Catherine Farrell6-3, 2-6, 1-0
L#2 SinglesVirginia Richards vs Kristin Loke2-6, 2-6
L#3 SinglesLaura Tharp vs Lindsay Wigginton6-7, 4-6
2026-05-11vs LCTA40/Ait/MPRWon 30
W#1 SinglesCarly Hara vs Heather Lucarelli4-6, 6-3, 1-0
W#2 SinglesAlisa Mosler vs Dina Tizzard6-0, 6-3
W#3 SinglesGeorgia Krewson vs Shannon Malmstrom6-4, 6-4
2026-05-03vs LCTA40/O'Brien/DICLost 12
L#1 SinglesLauren Claypoole vs Heather Hatch7-6, 1-6, 0-1
W#2 SinglesCarly Hara vs Debbie OBrien6-4, 6-4
L#3 SinglesLaura Tharp vs Elke Pizzo3-6, 6-4, 1-0
2026-04-26vs LCTA40/Godfrey-Jackson/CTCWon 21
L#1 SinglesGeorgia Krewson vs Catherine Farrell2-6, 0-6
W#2 SinglesCarly Hara vs Rachel Farmer6-3, 6-3
W#3 SinglesAlisa Mosler vs Lindsay Wigginton6-1, 6-3
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 standings3 teams · 40 & over Singles Women 3.0
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1LCTA40/O'Brien/DIC5112616153
2LCTA40/Ait/MPR3381022172
3LCTA40/Richards/ MPR2481022176

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 2.76 estimated across 6 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.

3.03
Carly Hara
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 50% · published 3
2.97
Lauren Claypoole
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
2.68
Laura Tharp
usually #3 Singles 67%, also #2 Singles 33% · published
2.68
Virginia Richards
usually #2 Singles 33%, also #1 Singles 33% · published
2.63
Alisa Mosler
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #1 Singles 25% · published 3
2.55
Georgia Krewson
usually #3 Singles 67%, also #1 Singles 33% · published 3
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.

Virginia Richards + Georgia Krewson213 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.

3
Carly Hara
52W–50L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%41%59%
3.03
Lauren Claypoole
68W–59L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%60%40%
2.97
Laura Tharp
31W–24L career · 3 lines in 2026
8%91%1%
2.68
Virginia Richards
22W–36L career · 3 lines in 2026
9%91%1%
2.68
3
Alisa Mosler
61W–58L career · 4 lines in 2026
16%84%<1%
2.63
3
Georgia Krewson
61W–63L career · 3 lines in 2026
36%64%<1%
2.55

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.