Teams

Bethel/Priest 55+ 4.0 Mixed Tuesday PM

2025 Piedmont Mixed Doubles 55 · 4.0 Mxd Tues PM

13 players · average NTRP 4.00 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2025-07-24vs Smith 55's 4.0 Mxd Tues PMLost 12
L#1 DoublesPaul Nolan / Leah Price vs Paul Juengel / Ann Evans3-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesJohn W Quick / Gwen Highsmith-Quick vs Robert Wells / Ann Morris4-6, 3-6
W#3 DoublesDavid Spain / Amanda Reynolds vs Robert Lynch / Caroline McAlister3-6, 6-4, 1-0
2025-06-10vs Smith 55's 4.0 Mxd Tues PMWon 21
L#1 DoublesAnne Naude / Johan Naude vs Paul Juengel / Ann Evans2-6, 2-6
W#2 DoublesChris Amos / Paul Nolan vs Keith Black / Caroline McAlister6-1, 6-1
W#3 DoublesAmanda Reynolds / John W Quick vs Robert Lynch / Suzanne Rudy6-1, 6-1
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 4.0 Mxd Tues 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 3.48 estimated across 10 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.

Anne Naude
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.65
Joy Martin
published
3.60
John W Quick
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
3.56
Amanda Reynolds
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.56
Lynn Chafin
published
3.54
Stanley Marrow
published
3.50
Keevie Martin
published
3.41
Gwen Highsmith-Quick
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.41
Chris Amos
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.29
Leah Price
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.29
Vicky Bethel
published
Johan Naude
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Paul Nolan
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · 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.

John W Quick + Gwen Highsmith-Quick0831% games−11.6% vs expected
Stanley Marrow + Amanda Reynolds123 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
Anne Naude
0W–2L career · type S · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Joy Martin
57W–78L career · no lines in 2025
14%86%1%
3.65
John W Quick
11W–12L career · 2 lines in 2025
23%76%<1%
3.60
4
Amanda Reynolds
4W–8L career · 2 lines in 2025
35%65%<1%
3.56
Lynn Chafin
10W–13L career · no lines in 2025
<1%35%65%
3.56
Stanley Marrow
2W–7L career · no lines in 2025
38%62%<1%
3.54
Keevie Martin
5W–5L career · no lines in 2025
51%49%<1%
3.50
Gwen Highsmith-Quick
4W–17L career · 1 line in 2025
74%26%<1%
3.41
4
Chris Amos
5W–9L career · type S · 1 line in 2025
74%26%<1%
3.41
Leah Price
2W–16L career · 1 line in 2025
94%6%<1%
3.29
Vicky Bethel
4W–12L career · no lines in 2025
94%6%<1%
3.29
Johan Naude
0W–2L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Paul Nolan
5W–13L career · 2 lines 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.