Teams

Wilkinson - Dbls 3.5W

2022 Piedmont Summer Daze Doubles · Summer Daze 3.5 Women Night

11 players · average NTRP 3.00 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2022-07-14vs Roley - Dbls 3.5WLost 02
L#2 DoublesKatharina Welborn / Mariann Van Ryen vs Kim Wallace / Christa Wykoff5-7, 6-4, 0-1
L#3 DoublesVickie Degges / Angie Messick vs Meghan Hilleboe / Leslie Sheppard4-6, 3-6
2022-06-30vs Miller - Dbls 3.5WWon 10
W#2 DoublesAngie Messick / Jan Whittaker vs Jenny McArthur / Sue O'Shaughnessy6-2, 6-4
2022-06-02vs Billings - Dbls 3.5WLost 01
L#3 DoublesMariann Van Ryen / Angie Messick vs Melinda Billings / Britt Flanagan2-6, 0-6
2022-05-26vs Goy/Georgevich - Dbls 3.5WLost 01
L#3 DoublesAngie Messick / Mariann Van Ryen vs Elia Mavronikolas / Courtney Jones3-6, 5-7
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 Summer Daze 3.5 Women Night 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 2.94 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.

3.26
Niddy Corrias
published
3.18
Jan Whittaker
published
3.11
Vickie Degges
published
3.00
Medy Wurth
published
2.97
Katharina Welborn
published
2.93
Angie Messick
usually #3 Doubles 57%, also #1 Doubles 29% · published 3
2.89
Janice Wilkinson
published
2.77
Lee Farley
published
2.68
Gayle Taylordean
published 3
2.65
Mariann Van Ryen
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
Leanne Fry
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.

Angie Messick + Mariann Van Ryen201555% games−9.7% vs expected
Medy Wurth + Janice Wilkinson404 matchesnot enough data
Vickie Degges + Katharina Welborn123 matchesnot enough data
Katharina Welborn + Lee Farley033 matchesnot enough data
Katharina Welborn + Gayle Taylordean123 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.

Niddy Corrias
11W–16L career · no lines in 2022
2%94%3%
3.26
Jan Whittaker
10W–13L career · no lines in 2022
8%91%1%
3.18
Vickie Degges
14W–21L career · no lines in 2022
20%80%<1%
3.11
Medy Wurth
14W–7L career · no lines in 2022
<1%50%50%
3.00
Katharina Welborn
4W–18L career · no lines in 2022
60%40%<1%
2.97
3
Angie Messick
103W–78L career · 7 lines in 2022
<1%70%30%
2.93
Janice Wilkinson
11W–2L career · no lines in 2022
<1%80%20%
2.89
Lee Farley
8W–10L career · no lines in 2022
2%94%4%
2.77
3
Gayle Taylordean
10W–28L career · no lines in 2022
8%91%1%
2.68
Mariann Van Ryen
121W–99L career · 6 lines in 2022
13%87%<1%
2.65
Leanne Fry
1W–0L career · no lines in 2022
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.