Teams

Terracina/40 Combo 8.5/MAC

2025 Monroe Southern Combo 40 & Over - Women · 8.5 Monroe (40&O) Women

6 players · average NTRP 3.50 / LOUISIANA

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2025-09-28vs McGee/40 Combo 8.5/ForLost 02
L#1 DoublesDeborah Burgess / Karen Oliver vs Lenette Romero / Donna McGee1-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesBrenda Wilson / Kathy Terracina vs Tracie Coons / Rebekah Anzalone2-6, 1-6
2025-09-27vs McGee/40 Combo 8.5/ForLost 03
L#1 DoublesKaren Oliver / Misti Hajj vs Rebekah Anzalone / Tracie Coons2-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesJacquellyn Whatley / Brenda Wilson vs Catherine Hardy / Beth McNeil2-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesKathy Terracina / Lisa Johnson vs Debbie Garner / Donna McGee1-6, 1-6
2025-09-26vs McGee/40 Combo 8.5/ForLost 03
L#1 DoublesKathy Terracina / Lisa Johnson vs Rebekah Anzalone / Tracie Coons1-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesMisti Hajj / Brenda Wilson vs Catherine Hardy / Beth McNeil3-6, 2-6
L#3 DoublesKimberly Leija / Karen Oliver vs Donna McGee / Debbie Garner0-6, 3-6
2025-09-25vs McGee/40 Combo 8.5/ForLost 03
L#1 DoublesJacquellyn Whatley / Brenda Wilson vs Catherine Hardy / Beth McNeil0-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesKathy Terracina / Lisa Johnson vs Donna McGee / Debbie Garner1-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesKimberly Leija / Deborah Burgess vs Rebekah Anzalone / Tracie Coons1-6, 2-6
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 standings2 teams · 8.5 Monroe (40&O) Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1McGee/40 Combo 8.5/For40120031
2Terracina/40 Combo 8.5/MAC0401224144

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 3.44 estimated across 4 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
Brenda Wilson
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.47
Misti Hajj
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
3.43
Deborah Burgess
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.36
Kathy Terracina
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
Jacquellyn Whatley
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
Kimberly Leija
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.

Deborah Burgess + Kathy Terracina224 matchesnot enough data
Brenda Wilson + Jacquellyn Whatley033 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
Brenda Wilson
9W–17L career · type A · 4 lines in 2025
<1%44%56%
3.52
Misti Hajj
8W–5L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%60%40%
3.47
3.5
Deborah Burgess
10W–15L career · type A · 2 lines in 2025
<1%70%30%
3.43
Kathy Terracina
5W–11L career · 4 lines in 2025
<1%86%14%
3.36
3.5
Jacquellyn Whatley
0W–9L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Kimberly Leija
6W–4L career · 2 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.