Teams

Holley, Gena

2026 Combo 40 & Over-JXN · Women 5.5

11 players · average NTRP 2.50 / MISSISSIPPI

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2026-08-17vs Coins, JimmieWon 30
W#1 DoublesMegan Lyon / Kelli Ford vs Darrilyn Mitchell / NATISHA CROSBY7-6, 6-2
W#2 DoublesRena Shepherd / Robin Ball vs Erica Craft / Charlotte Crisler6-4, 5-7, 1-0
W#3 DoublesGena Holley / Jennifer Sylvester vs Nedra Frisby / Ka Wanda Allen6-2, 6-4
2026-08-10vs Manuel, ElaineWon 30
W#1 DoublesRobin Ball / Tina Harris vs Sherry Bouldin / Candice Ross6-1, 6-1
W#2 DoublesMary Lauren Boykin / Rena Shepherd vs Stephanie Jierski / Elaine Manuel6-1, 6-2
W#3 DoublesAshley Ewing / Mary Hollingsworth vs Kim Maureen Price / Chrystal Gray6-3, 6-3
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 Women 5.5 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 2.58 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.

2.80
Megan Lyon
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.79
Jennifer Sylvester
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.73
Rena Shepherd
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
2.65
Mary Hollingsworth
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.63
Gena Holley
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
2.49
Lisa Haynie
published
2.46
Kelli Ford
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.44
Ashley Ewing
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
2.43
Robin Ball
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
2.40
Mary Lauren Boykin
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Lindsey Fonville
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.

Ashley Ewing + Mary Hollingsworth3545% games+0.2% vs expected
Rena Shepherd + Gena Holley3448% games−4.3% vs expected
Lisa Haynie + Megan Lyon2344% gamesnot enough data
Kelli Ford + Mary Lauren Boykin314 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.

Megan Lyon
26W–17L career · 1 line in 2026
0%2%98%
2.80
Jennifer Sylvester
5W–0L career · 1 line in 2026
0%2%98%
2.79
Rena Shepherd
47W–21L career · 3 lines in 2026
0%5%95%
2.73
Mary Hollingsworth
7W–9L career · 1 line in 2026
15%84%1%
2.65
Gena Holley
39W–36L career · 2 lines in 2026
0%18%82%
2.63
Lisa Haynie
15W–9L career · no lines in 2026
0%53%47%
2.49
Kelli Ford
28W–12L career · 1 line in 2026
0%62%38%
2.46
2.5
Ashley Ewing
5W–14L career · 1 line in 2026
0%67%33%
2.44
Robin Ball
8W–12L career · 2 lines in 2026
0%69%31%
2.43
Mary Lauren Boykin
21W–7L career · 1 line in 2026
0%77%23%
2.40
Lindsey Fonville
9W–15L 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.