Teams

Hagood6.5/META

2025 Combo 40 & over-META · 6.5 Senior Women

10 players · average NTRP 3.00 / TENNESSEE

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2025-09-17vs Cowart/METAWon 30
W#1 DoublesKeo Jur / Mary Warner vs Jan Goodsell / Kirsten Hoskins6-1, 6-1
W#2 DoublesShannon Hinkle / Makie Kordamiri vs Madga Cox / Dana Wenzell7-6, 6-3
W#3 DoublesRegan Jordan / Ju Mo vs Kari Holt / Sarah LaGuardia4-6, 6-3, 1-0
2025-09-10vs Cowart/METAWon 20
W#1 DoublesKeo Jur / Mary Warner vs Lynne Little / Holli Cox6-4, 6-1
W#3 DoublesTheresa Boyd / Ju Mo vs Tracey Moffatt / Dana Wenzell6-2, 6-1
2025-09-07vs Cowart/METAWon 21
L#1 DoublesAnita Jilton / Susan Taylor vs Sarah LaGuardia / Lynne Little1-6, 1-6
W#2 DoublesKeo Jur / Mary Warner vs Tracey Moffatt / Jean Swindle6-2, 6-1
W#3 DoublesShannon Hinkle / Regan Jordan vs Jan Goodsell / Dana Wenzell6-3, 6-2
2025-08-31vs Cowart/METALost 12
L#1 DoublesRegan Jordan / Pam Mobley vs Jane Dean / Lynne Little4-6, 3-5
L#2 DoublesJoan Hagood / Theresa Boyd vs Tracey Moffatt / Holli Cox6-4, 1-6, 0-1
W#3 DoublesRachel Lovelace / Shannon Hinkle vs Jan Goodsell / Kirsten Hoskins6-4, 7-5
2025-08-27vs Cowart/METAWon 21
W#1 DoublesJoan Hagood / Shannon Hinkle vs Sarah LaGuardia / Lynne Little7-5, 6-2
W#2 DoublesJu Mo / Pam Mobley vs Holli Cox / Jan Goodsell6-1, 6-2
L#3 DoublesMary Warner / Makie Kordamiri vs Jane Dean / Madga Cox1-6, 4-6
2025-08-24vs Cowart/METAWon 21
L#1 DoublesRachel Lovelace / Theresa Boyd vs Sarah LaGuardia / Lynne Little3-6, 2-6
W#2 DoublesAnita Jilton / Mary Warner vs Jane Dean / Dana Wenzell2-6, 7-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesRegan Jordan / Shannon Hinkle vs Holli Cox / Kirsten Hoskins4-6, 6-3, 1-0
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 standings2 teams · 6.5 Senior Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Hagood6.5/META5113513135
2Cowart/META1551327181

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 3.03 estimated across 9 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.

3.28
Pam Mobley
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
3.17
Theresa Boyd
usually #2 Doubles 40%, also #3 Doubles 40% · published
3.17
Ju Mo
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.13
Shannon Hinkle
usually #3 Doubles 71%, also #1 Doubles 14% · published
3.06
Keo Jur
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.03
Anita Jilton
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3
3.00
Regan Jordan
usually #3 Doubles 75%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published
2.92
Makie Kordamiri
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
2.55
Joan Hagood
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
Rachel Lovelace
usually #3 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.

Joan Hagood + Anita Jilton2444% games−4.0% vs expected
Shannon Hinkle + Regan Jordan224 matchesnot enough data
Anita Jilton + Theresa Boyd224 matchesnot enough data
Joan Hagood + Keo Jur123 matchesnot enough data
Anita Jilton + Regan Jordan213 matchesnot enough data
Anita Jilton + Ju Mo303 matchesnot enough data
Anita Jilton + Keo Jur213 matchesnot enough data
Regan Jordan + Ju Mo213 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.

Pam Mobley
13W–9L career · 3 lines in 2025
2%94%4%
3.28
Theresa Boyd
12W–12L career · 5 lines in 2025
10%90%1%
3.17
Ju Mo
29W–11L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%10%90%
3.17
Shannon Hinkle
20W–27L career · 7 lines in 2025
16%84%<1%
3.13
Keo Jur
17W–14L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%33%67%
3.06
3
Anita Jilton
36W–24L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%40%60%
3.03
Regan Jordan
20W–25L career · 4 lines in 2025
<1%51%49%
3.00
Makie Kordamiri
12W–11L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%72%28%
2.92
Joan Hagood
8W–20L career · 2 lines in 2025
34%66%<1%
2.55
Rachel Lovelace
10W–17L 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.