Teams

Lacy/Memphis

2025 Tri-Level 18 & Over - Memphis · 3.5, 3.0, 2.5 Women

14 players · average NTRP 3.00 / TENNESSEE

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2025-07-14vs Noldon/MemphisLost 12
L#1 DoublesVirginia Palacio / Vanessa Nieto vs Melinda Hoehn / Tracy Pope5-7, 5-7
L#2 DoublesAmy Worrell Sterling / Clare Santos vs Morgan Burton / Marjorie Noldon2-6, 3-6
W#3 DoublesLeslie Barton / Katy Kitchens vs Ashley Elder / Ashley Walker6-7, 6-3, 1-0
2025-07-08vs Gilless/MemphisSplit 11
W#2 DoublesAnita Herren / Bradi Bair vs Courtney Woodmansee / Shanna Eason6-3, 6-2
L#3 DoublesSusan Northen-Lacy / Jo Picha vs Claire Sentilles / Katherine Sentilles6-7, 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 standings for 3.5, 3.0, 2.5 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 2.69 estimated across 12 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.

3.36
Bradi Bair
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.15
Virginia Palacio
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.99
Vanessa Nieto
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.83
Susan Northen-Lacy
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.66
2.62
2.49
Leslie Barton
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.47
Amy Worrell Sterling
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.46
Katy Kitchens
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.46
Jenny Richardson
published
2.44
Clare Santos
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
2.32
Suzanne Franks
published
Gina Ramos
published
Natalia Castellanos
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.

Susan Northen-Lacy + Bradi Bair5254% games+0.4% vs expected
Suzanne Franks + Katy Kitchens6650% games+0.0% vs expected
Amy Worrell Sterling + Ching Cushing-Murray033 matchesnot enough data
Leslie Barton + Jenny Richardson213 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
Bradi Bair
29W–17L career · 1 line in 2025
1%84%15%
3.36
Virginia Palacio
13W–19L career · 1 line in 2025
15%85%1%
3.15
Vanessa Nieto
8W–12L career · 1 line in 2025
52%48%<1%
2.99
Susan Northen-Lacy
21W–23L career · 1 line in 2025
1%87%12%
2.83
3
Ching Cushing-Murray
13W–23L career · no lines in 2025
13%86%1%
2.66
Irma Garcia Villarreal
3W–3L career · no lines in 2025
20%80%<1%
2.62
Leslie Barton
15W–7L career · 1 line in 2025
0%53%47%
2.49
3
Amy Worrell Sterling
5W–18L career · 1 line in 2025
58%42%<1%
2.47
Katy Kitchens
16W–11L career · 1 line in 2025
0%62%38%
2.46
Jenny Richardson
3W–6L career · no lines in 2025
0%62%38%
2.46
2.5
Clare Santos
2W–5L career · 1 line in 2025
0%66%34%
2.44
Suzanne Franks
16W–20L career · no lines in 2025
0%90%10%
2.32
Gina Ramos
8W–1L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Natalia Castellanos
3W–3L career · no 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.