Teams

Blankenship/Murfreesboro

2026 Adult 40 & Over - Murfreesboro · 4.0 Women

12 players · average NTRP 4.00 / TENNESSEE

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2026-05-16vs Burnstein/MurfreesboroLost 13
W#1 DoublesAngela Blankenship / Kelly Horna vs Lacey Keally / Morgan Hinkley5-7, 6-3, 1-0
L#1 SinglesShannon Fox vs Chantelle Duncan1-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesRonda Hawkins / Suzanne Eubank vs Julie Burnstein / Whitney Conyers2-6, 5-7
L#3 DoublesMidori Egawa / Pamela Hicks vs Lisa Yawn / Dodson Randolph1-6, 2-6
2026-03-22vs Burnstein/MurfreesboroLost 13
L#1 DoublesKelly Horna / Sara Bryson vs Briana Mullenax / Whitney Conyers1-6, 6-2, 0-1
L#1 SinglesTonia Porter vs Lacey Keally5-5
W#2 DoublesJennifer Kelley / Suzanne Eubank vs Dodson Randolph / Kristin Dennis6-2, 6-3
L#3 DoublesJanet Adamson / Cassie Bourdon vs Maryam Khan / Poonam Kabaria2-6, 4-6
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 4.0 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 3.53 estimated across 11 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.

3.75
Janet Adamson
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.70
Kelly Horna
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.65
Sara Bryson
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.61
Suzanne Eubank
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.57
Midori Egawa
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.55
Tonia Porter
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
3.52
Angela Blankenship
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.50
Cassie Bourdon
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.43
Shannon Fox
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 50% · published
3.32
Ronda Hawkins
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.26
Pamela Hicks
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Niki Delk
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.

Pamela Hicks + Angela Blankenship3262% gamesnot enough data
Cassie Bourdon + Angela Blankenship2359% gamesnot enough data
Pamela Hicks + Ronda Hawkins213 matchesnot enough data
Angela Blankenship + Kelly Horna303 matchesnot enough data
Kelly Horna + Sara Bryson033 matchesnot enough data
Kelly Horna + Janet Adamson303 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.

Janet Adamson
44W–14L career · 1 line in 2026
3%95%3%
3.75
Kelly Horna
23W–23L career · 2 lines in 2026
6%93%1%
3.70
Sara Bryson
13W–14L career · 1 line in 2026
12%88%<1%
3.65
Suzanne Eubank
18W–17L career · 2 lines in 2026
20%80%<1%
3.61
Midori Egawa
8W–6L career · 1 line in 2026
29%71%<1%
3.57
Tonia Porter
24W–21L career · 1 line in 2026
35%65%<1%
3.55
4
Angela Blankenship
30W–31L career · 1 line in 2026
44%56%<1%
3.52
4
Cassie Bourdon
28W–22L career · 1 line in 2026
52%48%<1%
3.50
Shannon Fox
47W–25L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%70%30%
3.43
Ronda Hawkins
18W–24L career · 1 line in 2026
1%91%9%
3.32
Pamela Hicks
36W–30L career · 1 line in 2026
2%95%3%
3.26
Niki Delk
5W–7L career · no lines in 2026
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.