Teams

CCaudill/MHarding (PPRSC)

2025 Combo Doubles 18 & Over League · 18 & Over Combo 2.5 Women

10 players · average NTRP 2.62 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2025-10-09vs KKeen (WSRC)Won 10
W#2 DoublesAdrienne Smith / Erin Pavelchak vs Randi Kayes / Samantha Holcman6-2, 6-1
2025-09-18vs LPorcher/LSatterly (Carmel)Won 10
W#1 DoublesChelsea Caudill / Adrienne Smith vs Mary Kate Kearney / Anne McCurry6-2, 6-0
W#1 DoublesVirginia Schmidt / Margaret Harding vs Jill Ytterstad / Jessie Keller6-4, 6-1
W#2 DoublesRebecca Norman / Ashley Feehan vs Dorit Cohen / Terri Lynch6-1, 6-0
W#3 DoublesJenna Vaporis / Christina Murphy vs Rie Asano / Marisol Naranjo6-0, 6-1
W#1 DoublesErin Pavelchak / Adrienne Smith vs Sheri Noot / Jill Ytterstad6-3, 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 standings for 18 & Over Combo 2.5 Women 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 2.36 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.

2.98
Adrienne Smith
usually #1 Doubles 64%, also #2 Doubles 21% · published 3
2.36
Chelsea Caudill
published 2.5
2.35
Rachel Bardin
published
2.33
Virginia Schmidt
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.32
Ashley Feehan
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
2.31
Margaret Harding
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.27
Erin Pavelchak
published
2.19
Meredith BROUSE
published
2.18
Alaine Patton
published 2.5
Jenna Vaporis
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.

Virginia Schmidt + Chelsea Caudill2545% games+1.7% vs expected
Margaret Harding + Virginia Schmidt2345% gamesnot enough data
Margaret Harding + Chelsea Caudill134 matchesnot enough data
Virginia Schmidt + Ashley Feehan123 matchesnot enough data
Rachel Bardin + Chelsea Caudill033 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
Adrienne Smith
61W–40L career · 14 lines in 2025
<1%55%45%
2.98
2.5
Chelsea Caudill
3W–15L career · no lines in 2025
0%84%16%
2.36
Rachel Bardin
8W–13L career · no lines in 2025
0%86%14%
2.35
Virginia Schmidt
7W–19L career · 1 line in 2025
0%89%11%
2.33
2.5
Ashley Feehan
6W–12L career · 1 line in 2025
0%91%9%
2.32
Margaret Harding
8W–21L career · 1 line in 2025
0%91%9%
2.31
Erin Pavelchak
4W–15L career · no lines in 2025
0%95%5%
2.27
Meredith BROUSE
4W–3L career · no lines in 2025
0%99%1%
2.19
2.5
Alaine Patton
3W–7L career · no lines in 2025
0%99%1%
2.18
Jenna Vaporis
2W–1L career · 1 line in 2025
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.