Teams

Holley, Gena

2026 Combo 18 & Over-JXN · Women 6.5

11 players · average NTRP 3.30 / MISSISSIPPI

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2026-08-27vs Masley, MorganWon 30
W#1 DoublesDeborah McGehee / Tina Harris vs Jessie Hornback / Dale Cook6-3, 6-1
W#2 DoublesMeghan Watson / Nancy Thompson vs Gabrielle Smith / Hannah Hart6-3, 6-0
W#3 DoublesCecil Patton / Mary Wilsford Hodges vs Morgan Masley / Bailey Brown6-4, 6-1
2026-08-20vs Howard, JamieWon 21
W#1 DoublesJan Woodson / Rena Shepherd vs Devan Bucklew / Jamie Howard2-6, 7-5, 1-0
W#2 DoublesAnna Dotson / Meghan Watson vs Cameron Trussell / Neely Morrison7-6, 5-7, 1-0
L#3 DoublesRobbie Ellard / Katie Vander Molen vs Stephany Cooper / Stephanie Tesseneer6-4, 4-6, 0-1
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 6.5 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 3.10 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.

3.60
Anna Dotson
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.50
Cecil Patton
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.40
Deborah McGehee
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.31
Jan Woodson
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
2.98
Cheryl Sykes
published 3
2.91
Robbie Ellard
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.90
Rena Shepherd
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.86
Gena Holley
published 3
2.80
Mary Wilsford Hodges
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.77
Meghan Watson
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Katie Vander Molen
usually #3 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.

Rena Shepherd + Cheryl Sykes7358% games+9.5% vs expected
Deborah McGehee + Jan Woodson231952% games+6.9% vs expected
Meghan Watson + Gena Holley1545% games+1.0% vs expected
Rena Shepherd + Gena Holley5452% games−4.1% vs expected
Deborah McGehee + Anna Dotson3257% gamesnot enough data
Deborah McGehee + Robbie Ellard303 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
Anna Dotson
89W–74L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%21%79%
3.60
3.5
Cecil Patton
28W–14L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%51%49%
3.50
3.5
Deborah McGehee
117W–81L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%78%22%
3.40
Jan Woodson
70W–56L career · 3 lines in 2026
1%92%7%
3.31
3
Cheryl Sykes
51W–38L career · type A · no lines in 2026
<1%56%44%
2.98
Robbie Ellard
26W–34L career · 1 line in 2026
0%<1%>99%
2.91
Rena Shepherd
70W–37L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%79%21%
2.90
3
Gena Holley
47W–69L career · no lines in 2026
<1%86%14%
2.86
Mary Wilsford Hodges
37W–34L career · 1 line in 2026
1%93%6%
2.80
Meghan Watson
11W–36L career · 2 lines in 2026
2%94%4%
2.77
Katie Vander Molen
0W–1L career · 1 line 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.