Teams

KFuller-ENO

2025 Eno River Singles 40 & Over · 40 & Over Singles 4.0 Women Evening

7 players · average NTRP 3.92 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule7 played
2025-07-12vs MLong-ENOWon 20
W#2 SinglesNancy Pack vs Kim Peters6-2, 7-5
W#3 SinglesRoberta Hadley vs N/A6-0, 6-0
2025-07-08vs EWyngaarden-HRLost 02
L#1 SinglesLeah Weinberger vs Julie Spearman3-6, 6-7
L#3 SinglesPamela Hankerson vs Anne Sherow1-6, 0-6
2025-07-01vs Post-Rust/McGill-DFCWon 20
W#1 SinglesNancy Pack vs Dayna Kelly6-0, 6-1
W#2 SinglesMeghan Rider vs Christa McGill6-4, 7-5
2025-06-17vs SFranks-ENOLost 02
L#1 SinglesLeah Weinberger vs Cathy Joyce2-6
L#2 SinglesPamela Hankerson vs Amy Hoots0-6, 0-6
2025-06-03vs EWyngaarden-HRLost 01
L#2 SinglesLeah Weinberger vs Tiffany Langino3-6, 3-6
2025-05-27vs Post-Rust/McGill-DFCWon 20
W#1 SinglesNancy Pack vs Amanda Lacoff6-2, 3-6, 1-0
W#2 SinglesMeghan Rider vs Susie Post-Rust6-3, 6-2
2025-05-22vs SFranks-ENOLost 03
L#1 SinglesLeah Weinberger vs Cathy Joyce1-6, 3-6
L#2 SinglesRoberta Hadley vs Amy Hoots0-6, 1-6
L#3 SinglesPamela Hankerson vs Laurie Straube1-6, 1-6
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 standings for 40 & Over Singles 4.0 Women Evening 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 3.61 estimated across 7 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.

4.02
Nancy Pack
usually #1 Singles 67%, also #2 Singles 33% · published 4.5
3.77
Carolyn Lee
published 4
3.76
Leah Weinberger
usually #1 Singles 75%, also #2 Singles 25% · published 4
3.64
Meghan Rider
usually #2 Singles 100% · published 4
3.57
Emily Childs
published
3.39
Roberta Hadley
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #3 Singles 50% · published 3.5
3.09
Pamela Hankerson
usually #3 Singles 67%, also #2 Singles 33% · published 3.5
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.

Roberta Hadley + Pamela Hankerson121647% games+9.6% vs expected
Emily Childs + Meghan Rider2548% games+5.3% vs expected
Leah Weinberger + Meghan Rider13652% games−3.7% vs expected
Nancy Pack + Meghan Rider6260% gamesnot 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.

4.5
Nancy Pack
295W–89L career · 3 lines in 2025
43%56%<1%
4.02
4
Carolyn Lee
26W–14L career · no lines in 2025
3%92%5%
3.77
4
Leah Weinberger
357W–281L career · 4 lines in 2025
3%93%4%
3.76
4
Meghan Rider
341W–169L career · 2 lines in 2025
16%84%1%
3.64
Emily Childs
31W–33L career · no lines in 2025
31%69%<1%
3.57
3.5
Roberta Hadley
245W–120L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%79%21%
3.39
3.5
Pamela Hankerson
96W–202L career · type A · 3 lines in 2025
27%73%<1%
3.09

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.