Teams

Jones

2026 Sequoyah Southern Tri-Level 18 & Over - Christmas Tourn · 18 & Over Ladies Tri-Level(2.5

10 players · average NTRP 2.67 / GEORGIA

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2025-12-07vs MashburnLost 12
W#1 DoublesSuzanne Hanley / Lynde Pas vs Jessica Dunn / Candace Mason4-6, 6-3, 1-0
L#2 DoublesMeredith Banta / Brooke Greenway vs Pam Mills / Jennifer Kerce6-4, 1-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesAmy Hodges / Emily Mobbs vs Pam Abernathy / Mollie Locke3-6, 0-6
2025-12-07vs MorganLost 03
L#1 DoublesLucky Chan / Suzanne Hanley vs Hannah Laury / Jenna Thomas4-6, 6-4, 0-1
L#2 DoublesLynde Pas / Mary Andersen vs Nena Marcus / Cami Marcus2-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesAmy Hodges / Emily Mobbs vs Stephonie Walker / Lori Patch1-6, 0-6
2025-12-06vs MashburnLost 03
L#1 DoublesTina Jones / Brooke Greenway vs Sket Angland / Dina Greeson0-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesLynde Pas / Meredith Banta vs Catrina Mashburn / Pam Mills5-7, 6-7
L#3 DoublesAmy Hodges / Pam Chapman vs Pam Abernathy / Anna George1-6, 0-6
2025-12-06vs MorganLost 12
L#1 DoublesLucky Chan / Suzanne Hanley vs Jewel Akpose / Millie Morgan5-7, 7-6, 0-1
L#2 DoublesMary Andersen / Brooke Greenway vs Isabel Morales / Ronna Sabino2-6, 0-6
W#3 DoublesPam Chapman / Emily Mobbs vs Lori Patch / Stephonie Walker1-6, 6-1, 1-0
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 18 & Over Ladies Tri-Level(2.5 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 2.86 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.

3.52
Suzanne Hanley
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.40
Lucky Chan
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.02
Lynde Pas
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
2.98
Tina Jones
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.77
Pam Chapman
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.77
Brooke Greenway
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.67
Mary Andersen
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.65
Meredith Banta
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.55
Emily Mobbs
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
2.29
Amy Hodges
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
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.

Pam Chapman + Emily Mobbs4162% games+9.4% vs expected
Meredith Banta + Amy Hodges044 matchesnot enough data
Brooke Greenway + Lynde Pas303 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.

Suzanne Hanley
39W–33L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%43%57%
3.52
Lucky Chan
29W–18L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%78%22%
3.40
Lynde Pas
41W–28L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%45%55%
3.02
Tina Jones
22W–23L career · 1 line in 2026
56%44%<1%
2.98
Pam Chapman
21W–23L career · 2 lines in 2026
2%94%4%
2.77
3
Brooke Greenway
32W–43L career · 3 lines in 2026
2%94%4%
2.77
Mary Andersen
3W–18L career · 2 lines in 2026
9%90%1%
2.67
Meredith Banta
21W–46L career · 2 lines in 2026
12%88%<1%
2.65
2.5
Emily Mobbs
14W–23L career · 3 lines in 2026
0%34%66%
2.55
2.5
Amy Hodges
17W–41L career · 3 lines in 2026
0%95%5%
2.29

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.