Teams

Johnson/18/Div1/Tri-Lvl/Ruston

2026 Ruston Tri Level 18 & Over - Women · 3.5,3.0,2.5 Ruston (18&O) Women

9 players · average NTRP 2.75 / LOUISIANA

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2026-08-02vs Sanderson/18/Div1/Tri-Lvl/RustonLost 02
L#1 DoublesJodi Marvin / Lynn Barron vs Anh Le / Taylor Weeks2-6, 0-6
L#3 DoublesTonya McCulloch / Beth Everett vs Regina McNeill / Kelley Ivey1-6, 0-6
2026-07-23vs McMaster/18/Div1/Tri-Lvl/RustonLost 12
W#1 DoublesJodi Marvin / Stefanie Simpson vs April Easley / Krystal Corbett6-3, 7-6
L#2 DoublesEmma Bowman / Lisa Davis vs Mary Moore / Chelsea Pernici2-6, 7-5, 0-1
L#3 DoublesBeth Everett / Hannah McKenzie vs Sarah Perry / Sarah Terral1-6, 0-6
2026-07-12vs Sanderson/18/Div1/Tri-Lvl/RustonLost 02
L#1 DoublesEmma Bowman / Lisa Davis vs Anh Le / Taylor Weeks1-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesShelly Fielder / Tammy Roberts vs Donna Wilburn / Jennifer Sanderson2-6, 3-6
2026-06-21vs McMaster/18/Div1/Tri-Lvl/RustonWon 21
W#1 DoublesJessica Johnson / Lynn Barron vs April Easley / Chelsea Pernici6-2, 1-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesShelly Fielder / Tammy Roberts vs Joan McMaster / Mary Moore6-0, 7-5
L#3 DoublesTonya McCulloch / Hannah McKenzie vs Sarah Perry / Emily Tucker3-6, 0-6
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 standings3 teams · 3.5,3.0,2.5 Ruston (18&O) Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Sanderson/18/Div1/Tri-Lvl/Ruston40111250
2Johnson/18/Div1/Tri-Lvl/Ruston134817118
3McMaster/18/Div1/Tri-Lvl/Ruston133919122

Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.

See the full flight, with every team’s record

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 2.98 estimated across 5 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.

3.18
Lynn Barron
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.12
Jodi Marvin
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.88
Stefanie Simpson
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.87
Shelly Fielder
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.86
Emma Bowman
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3
Jessica Johnson
published 3
Beth Everett
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
Hannah McKenzie
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
Tonya McCulloch
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
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.

Lynn Barron
7W–3L career · 2 lines in 2026
8%91%1%
3.18
Jodi Marvin
41W–28L career · 2 lines in 2026
18%82%<1%
3.12
Stefanie Simpson
11W–14L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%83%17%
2.88
Shelly Fielder
44W–32L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%83%16%
2.87
3
Emma Bowman
8W–10L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%86%14%
2.86
3
Jessica Johnson
no matches on record · no lines in 2026
not enough data
2.5
Beth Everett
0W–2L career · type S · 2 lines in 2026
not enough data
2.5
Hannah McKenzie
0W–2L career · 2 lines in 2026
not enough data
Tonya McCulloch
2W–6L career · 2 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.