Teams

Yadkin/Boone-Tanner/18+3.5.3.0.2.5

2026 Yadkin Valley Tri-Level 18 & Over · Women 3.5-3.0-2.5 - Saturday Morning

11 players · average NTRP 3.00 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule9 played
2026-08-15vs Yadkin/Jennings/18+3.5.3.0.2.5Lost 12
W#1 DoublesNadia Clevenger / Jennifer Jones vs Margaret Proegler / Addy Culp6-4, 6-1
L#2 DoublesRebecca Knudsen / Michelle Ford vs Caroline Shamburg / Jennie Smith1-6, 2-6
L#3 DoublesMeghan Boone / Amanda Tanner vs Laura Wilson / Laura Harvey1-6, 3-6
2026-08-08vs Yadkin/Jennings/18+3.5.3.0.2.5Won 21
L#1 DoublesMeghan Boone / Ella Hammond vs Becca Breeden / Laura Harvey5-7, 4-6
W#2 DoublesRebecca Knudsen / Nadia Clevenger vs Natalie Jennings / Carla Hoots6-3, 6-2
W#3 DoublesSarah Lycan / Jennifer Jones vs Addy Culp / Megan Polson6-3, 6-1
2026-08-01vs Yadkin/Townsend/18+3.5.3.0.2.5Won 30
W#1 DoublesElla Hammond / Katy Kerensky vs Blythe Murphy / Janess Reyna1-6, 6-1, 1-0
W#2 DoublesMichelle Ford / Kathleen Punger vs Marguerite Van Zijl / Nicole Brenner6-2, 5-7, 1-0
W#3 DoublesJennifer Jones / Nadia Clevenger vs Patricia AL Phillips / Chandler Jasperse6-0, 6-1
L#1 DoublesMeghan Boone / Michelle Ford vs Sarah Kaplan / Hillary Stevens2-6, 4-6
L#2 DoublesAmanda Tanner / Kathleen Punger vs Kristie Moesner / Melanie Brost7-6, 4-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesSarah Lycan / Nadia Clevenger vs Linda Barabasova / Bethany Kerr6-7, 6-2, 1-0
2026-07-18vs Yadkin/Jennings/18+3.5.3.0.2.5Split 11
W#1 DoublesMeghan Boone / Katy Kerensky vs Laura Wilson / Becca Breeden6-3, 6-2
L#2 DoublesMichelle Ford / Rebecca Knudsen vs Betsey Hutton / Jennie Smith2-6, 1-6
2026-07-11vs Yadkin/Townsend/18+3.5.3.0.2.5Lost 12
L#1 DoublesJeanne Boone / Katy Kerensky vs Blythe Murphy / Natalie Fishman3-6, 6-3, 0-1
L#2 DoublesKathleen Punger / Nadia Clevenger vs Shelly Tuhro / Janess Reyna3-6, 0-6
W#3 DoublesAshton Jackson / Jennifer Jones vs Chandler Jasperse / Patricia Townsend6-2, 6-2
L#1 DoublesKaty Kerensky / Ella Hammond vs Linda Patti / Hillary Stevens3-6, 6-4, 0-1
W#2 DoublesMeghan Boone / Amanda Tanner vs Deana Georgitis / Dana Alligood2-6, 6-3, 1-0
L#3 DoublesSarah Lycan / Nadia Clevenger vs Sara Greene / Katherine McPherson6-7, 3-3
2026-06-13vs Yadkin/Townsend/18+3.5.3.0.2.5Won 21
L#1 DoublesKathleen Punger / Ella Hammond vs Blythe Murphy / Janess Reyna7-5, 2-6, 0-1
W#2 DoublesMeghan Boone / Amanda Tanner vs Patricia Townsend / Carly Rosenkampff6-1, 6-2
W#3 DoublesAshton Jackson / Sarah Lycan vs Sara Meyer / Angela Coburn6-3, 6-4
L#1 DoublesJeanne Boone / Katy Kerensky vs Sarah Kaplan / Lucie Temple6-7, 5-7
L#2 DoublesMichelle Ford / Rebecca Knudsen vs Melanie Brost / Hillary Stevens0-6, 2-6
L#3 DoublesJennifer Jones / Ashton Jackson vs Linda Barabasova / Georgia Hinckley1-6, 1-6
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 standings4 teams · Women 3.5-3.0-2.5 - Saturday Morning
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Yadkin/Georgitis/FCC/18+3.5.3.0.2.58020411154
2Yadkin/Jennings/18+3.5.3.0.2.554131431247
3Yadkin/Boone-Tanner/18+3.5.3.0.2.52691532232
4Yadkin/Townsend/18+3.5.3.0.2.51651634214

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 2.89 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.

3.24
Katy Kerensky
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.17
Ella Hammond
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.08
Amanda Tanner
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 3
3.06
Sarah Lycan
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.98
Meghan Boone
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
2.88
Rebecca Knudsen
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.85
Kathleen Punger
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published
2.73
Parissa Ballard
published
2.63
Nadia Clevenger
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
2.28
Ashton Jackson
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Jeanne Boone
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.

Meghan Boone + Amanda Tanner5160% games+9.4% vs expected
Nadia Clevenger + Sarah Lycan123 matchesnot enough data
Amanda Tanner + Kathleen Punger123 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.

Katy Kerensky
2W–3L career · 5 lines in 2026
4%93%3%
3.24
Ella Hammond
1W–4L career · 4 lines in 2026
11%88%1%
3.17
3
Amanda Tanner
9W–4L career · type S · 4 lines in 2026
<1%28%72%
3.08
Sarah Lycan
4W–4L career · 4 lines in 2026
34%65%<1%
3.06
Meghan Boone
12W–5L career · 6 lines in 2026
<1%57%43%
2.98
Rebecca Knudsen
1W–5L career · 4 lines in 2026
81%19%<1%
2.88
Kathleen Punger
5W–13L career · 4 lines in 2026
1%85%15%
2.85
Parissa Ballard
5W–2L career · no lines in 2026
5%92%2%
2.73
Nadia Clevenger
6W–9L career · 6 lines in 2026
18%81%<1%
2.63
Ashton Jackson
3W–6L career · 3 lines in 2026
0%94%6%
2.28
Jeanne Boone
0W–2L career · 2 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.