Teams

HOCO-REYNOLDS

2025 · 2026 MATA USTA Adult 40 & Over - Fall

14 players · average NTRP 3.62 / GEORGIA

View scouting list →
Schedule
Flight standings3 teams · 2026 MATA USTA Adult 40 & Over - Fall
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1IH-COHEN4218615172
2RN-MOODY42131126202
3HOCO-REYNOLDS1551940252

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 3.42 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.

3.81
Vanessa Brooks
usually #1 Doubles 73%, also #1 Singles 9% · published
3.64
Angie Schwendeman
usually #1 Doubles 77%, also #2 Doubles 15% · published 4
3.54
Marian Wharton
usually #1 Doubles 53%, also #3 Doubles 27% · published
3.54
Patsy Bendall
usually #1 Doubles 61%, also #3 Doubles 17% · published
3.48
Sabine Murray
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 38% · published
3.48
Traci Ludicke
usually #1 Doubles 35%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.42
Catherine Harless
usually #3 Doubles 31%, also #2 Doubles 31% · published 3.5
3.35
Angela Easom
usually #2 Doubles 64%, also #3 Doubles 29% · published 3.5
3.32
Eima Sims
usually #2 Doubles 46%, also #3 Doubles 27% · published
3.27
Julie Reynolds
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 17% · published
3.26
Lydia Shelton
usually #1 Singles 75%, also #2 Doubles 13% · published
3.18
Kelly McClain
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
3.13
Charlie Arnold
usually #2 Doubles 53%, also #3 Doubles 41% · published 3.5
Leslie Elliott
usually #3 Doubles 44%, also #1 Doubles 33% · 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.

Catherine Harless + Julie Reynolds3253% games+5.6% vs expected
Patsy Bendall + Julie Reynolds0740% games+1.2% vs expected
Patsy Bendall + Angie Schwendeman4451% games−8.4% vs expected
Charlie Arnold + Kelly McClain3252% gamesnot enough data
Julie Reynolds + Marian Wharton3257% gamesnot enough data
Catherine Harless + Sabine Murray303 matchesnot enough data
Catherine Harless + Leslie Elliott123 matchesnot enough data
Sabine Murray + Traci Ludicke213 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.

Vanessa Brooks
26W–9L career · 11 lines in 2026
1%90%9%
3.81
4
Angie Schwendeman
12W–17L career · 13 lines in 2026
17%83%<1%
3.64
Marian Wharton
31W–27L career · 15 lines in 2026
<1%39%61%
3.54
Patsy Bendall
27W–39L career · 18 lines in 2026
40%60%<1%
3.54
Sabine Murray
15W–13L career · 8 lines in 2026
<1%55%45%
3.48
Traci Ludicke
47W–46L career · 39 lines in 2026
<1%57%43%
3.48
3.5
Catherine Harless
16W–21L career · 12 lines in 2026
<1%70%30%
3.42
3.5
Angela Easom
17W–11L career · 14 lines in 2026
1%86%14%
3.35
Eima Sims
8W–15L career · 11 lines in 2026
1%89%10%
3.32
Julie Reynolds
14W–25L career · 6 lines in 2026
3%92%5%
3.27
Lydia Shelton
9W–6L career · 8 lines in 2026
3%92%5%
3.26
Kelly McClain
4W–6L career · 8 lines in 2026
10%89%1%
3.18
3.5
Charlie Arnold
18W–19L career · 17 lines in 2026
19%81%<1%
3.13
Leslie Elliott
8W–14L career · 9 lines in 2026
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.