Teams

Roberson/Memphis

2025 Combo 18 & Over - Memphis · 7.5 18 & Over Women

14 players · average NTRP 3.50 / TENNESSEE

View scouting list →
Schedule1 played
2025-09-04vs Goetsch/MemphisLost 12
L#1 DoublesKatherine Dobbs / Elizabeth Carlisle vs Teresa Goetsch / Anita Kang6-7, 2-6
L#2 DoublesSarah Haygood / Palmer Burt vs Terri Smith / Carly McWatters1-6, 0-6
W#3 DoublesJessica Roberson / Allison Cates vs Meg Smith / Penny Martin6-4, 6-4
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 7.5 18 & Over 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 3.33 estimated across 13 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.

3.77
Madison Cowherd
published
3.66
Allison Cates
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.46
Palmer Burt
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.46
Jennifer Hobson
published
3.41
Katherine Dobbs
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.34
Kathleen Uhlhorn
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.28
Jessica Roberson
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.25
Bradley Fogelman
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.19
Jennifer Keras
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
3.19
Sarah Haygood
usually #2 Doubles 40%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published
3.16
Caroline Palmer
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3
3.13
Maggie Lovell
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
2.98
Alexandra Roll
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
Martha Robertson
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.

Maggie Lovell + Sarah Haygood3448% games+0.9% vs expected
Bradley Fogelman + Jennifer Keras2745% games−8.1% vs expected
Allison Cates + Palmer Burt224 matchesnot enough data
Jennifer Keras + Jennifer Hobson123 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.

Madison Cowherd
6W–2L career · no lines in 2025
3%92%5%
3.77
4
Allison Cates
9W–8L career · 1 line in 2025
13%86%1%
3.66
Palmer Burt
11W–13L career · 1 line in 2025
62%38%<1%
3.46
Jennifer Hobson
6W–7L career · no lines in 2025
<1%62%38%
3.46
Katherine Dobbs
3W–6L career · 1 line in 2025
74%26%<1%
3.41
Kathleen Uhlhorn
19W–5L career · 2 lines in 2025
1%86%13%
3.34
Jessica Roberson
19W–8L career · 1 line in 2025
2%92%5%
3.28
3.5
Bradley Fogelman
13W–12L career · 4 lines in 2025
4%93%3%
3.25
Jennifer Keras
11W–14L career · 3 lines in 2025
8%90%1%
3.19
Sarah Haygood
18W–20L career · 5 lines in 2025
8%90%1%
3.19
3
Caroline Palmer
13W–3L career · type A · 4 lines in 2025
<1%13%87%
3.16
Maggie Lovell
17W–12L career · 3 lines in 2025
18%82%<1%
3.13
3.5
Alexandra Roll
8W–10L career · 2 lines in 2025
56%44%<1%
2.98
Martha Robertson
5W–6L 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.