Teams

Forest Lakes

2023 Charlottesville Adult 40 & Over · Charlottesville Adult 40 & Over 3.5 Women

10 players · average NTRP 3.60 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2023-07-13vs ACAC - Hit and RunWon 10
W#1 DoublesKathy Huddleston / Mary Beth Cancienne vs Susan Bayliss / Beverly Sweeney6-3, 6-2
2023-07-07vs ACAC - Hit and RunSplit 11
W#1 DoublesMary Beth Cancienne / Allison Ewing vs Beverly Sweeney / Susan Bayliss6-2, 6-0
L#2 DoublesMaggie Leary / Noel Jorgensen vs Esther Bausserman / Kelli Wood5-7, 3-6
2023-07-06vs 40 - LoveWon 10
W#2 DoublesKelly Bauman / Jenny Furlow vs Jan Carroll / Mary Primm7-6, 6-1
2023-06-29vs BHSC - BinkoLost 02
L#1 DoublesMary Beth Cancienne / Jenny Furlow vs Lauren Suggs / Belinda Blankenship2-6, 5-7
L#2 DoublesNoel Jorgensen / Allison Ewing vs Melissa Hoover / Carrie Cooper5-7, 2-6
2023-06-15vs 40 - LoveWon 10
W#1 DoublesMary Beth Cancienne / Jenny Furlow vs Susie Abramson / Judith Divita6-0, 6-2
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 Charlottesville Adult 40 & Over 3.5 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 3.17 estimated across 8 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.

3.54
Jenny Furlow
usually #1 Doubles 86%, also #2 Doubles 14% · published 3.5
3.52
Mary Beth Cancienne
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.33
Stephanie Hall
published
3.28
Courtney Heyward
published 3.5
3.26
Allison Ewing
published 3.5
3.24
Noel Jorgensen
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
2.62
Judy Roy
published
2.58
Terry Roberts
published
Linda Corradino
published
Maggie Leary
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.

Jenny Furlow + Mary Beth Cancienne161652% games+7.8% vs expected
Jenny Furlow + Stephanie Hall224 matchesnot enough data
Jenny Furlow + Noel Jorgensen404 matchesnot enough data
Mary Beth Cancienne + Noel Jorgensen213 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.

3.5
Jenny Furlow
143W–102L career · 7 lines in 2023
<1%40%60%
3.54
4
Mary Beth Cancienne
82W–72L career · 9 lines in 2023
45%55%<1%
3.52
Stephanie Hall
14W–16L career · no lines in 2023
1%87%12%
3.33
3.5
Courtney Heyward
13W–9L career · no lines in 2023
2%92%5%
3.28
3.5
Allison Ewing
16W–17L career · no lines in 2023
3%92%4%
3.26
3.5
Noel Jorgensen
148W–84L career · 2 lines in 2023
5%92%3%
3.24
Judy Roy
2W–8L career · no lines in 2023
19%80%<1%
2.62
Terry Roberts
4W–12L career · no lines in 2023
28%72%<1%
2.58
Linda Corradino
0W–3L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Maggie Leary
0W–1L career · no lines in 2023
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.