Teams

MTC - O'Brien/Kinnier

2025 Adult 18 & Over Women Winter Night - Mobile · 2.5 Women Winter Night 18+

14 players · average NTRP 2.50 / ALABAMA

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2025-02-19vs MO - Nicholson 2.5Lost 03
L#1 DoublesVirginia Obrien / Madelyn St. John vs Paige Malone / Nikki Nicholson6-7, 1-6
L#1 SinglesRandall Bowman vs Hannah Pilkington0-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesAustin Leatherbury / Kimberly Huffstutler vs Madison Monk / Leana Ott0-6, 2-6
2025-01-29vs CCM - Roberds/SandLost 03
L#1 DoublesVirginia Kinnier / Casey Stuart vs Caroline Mathews / Jennifer Roberds4-6, 2-6
L#1 SinglesAnne Arden Norfleet vs Leigh Crowley2-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesAddie Radcliff / Adelaide Mcaleer vs Anne Sand / Lee Bonner0-6, 0-6
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 2.5 Women Winter Night 18+ 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 2.09 estimated across 6 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.

2.54
Mary Hasser
usually #2 Singles 33%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
2.45
Madelyn St. John
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
2.28
Alexandria Rogers
published 2.5
Adelaide Mcaleer
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
Austin Leatherbury
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
Casey Stuart
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
1.88
Louise Mcclelland
published
1.83
Anne Arden Norfleet
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 2.5
1.57
Laura McAleer
published
Addie Radcliff
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Kimberly Huffstutler
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Randall Bowman
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
Virginia Kinnier
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Virginia Obrien
usually #1 Doubles 100% · 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.

Virginia Obrien + Madelyn St. John033 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.

Mary Hasser
8W–20L career · 3 lines in 2025
40%60%<1%
2.54
Madelyn St. John
9W–14L career · 4 lines in 2025
64%36%<1%
2.45
2.5
Alexandria Rogers
1W–2L career · no lines in 2025
0%95%5%
2.28
2.5
Adelaide Mcaleer
1W–3L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
2.5
Austin Leatherbury
2W–4L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
2.5
Casey Stuart
1W–4L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Louise Mcclelland
0W–4L career · no lines in 2025
0%>99%<1%
1.88
2.5
Anne Arden Norfleet
0W–6L career · 1 line in 2025
0%>99%<1%
1.83
Laura McAleer
1W–5L career · no lines in 2025
0%>99%<1%
1.57
Addie Radcliff
0W–1L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Kimberly Huffstutler
1W–3L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Randall Bowman
1W–3L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Virginia Kinnier
1W–2L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Virginia Obrien
2W–5L career · 1 line 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.