Teams

MTC - Curtis

2025 Adult 40 & Over Women Winter Night- Mobile · 3.0 Women Winter Night 40+

17 players · average NTRP 2.67 / ALABAMA

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2025-03-13vs MTC - Rapoza/BogolinLost 14
L#1 DoublesKellie Eck / Kimberly Wilson Curtis vs Carolyn Simmons / Debbie Taylor5-7, 1-6
W#1 SinglesSelena Hemphill vs Kathy Belter6-0, 6-1
L#2 DoublesAdrienne Walker / Amber Martenstein vs Alice Huber / Brantley Caldwell3-6, 2-6
L#3 DoublesLa Donna Lee / Sharron Jackson vs Cazra Guy / Lauren Carter0-6, 0-6
L#4 DoublesKaren Bowman / Prudence Meadors vs Linda Bogolin / Michelle Smith Rapoza3-6, 3-6
2025-02-13vs MTC - Rapoza/BogolinLost 23
W#1 DoublesKellie Eck / Selena Hemphill vs Debbie Taylor / Carolyn Simmons3-6, 6-3, 1-0
W#1 SinglesKimberly Wilson Curtis vs Lauren Carter6-0, 6-3
L#2 DoublesBeverly Boggan / Sondra Leslie vs Wanda Johnson / Tracie Jordan5-7, 3-6
L#3 DoublesBecky Tate / Kelly Anderson vs Alice Huber / Yen Nguyen0-6, 0-6
L#4 DoublesAdrienne Walker / La Donna Lee vs Sara Barks / Jennifer Scott4-6, 7-6, 1-0
2025-02-03vs MTC - Rapoza/BogolinLost 14
W#1 DoublesLyndsey Dixon / Kimberly Wilson Curtis vs Linda Bogolin / Cazra Guy4-6, 6-4, 1-0
L#1 SinglesAmber Martenstein vs Lauren Carter5-7, 3-6
L#2 DoublesAdrienne Walker / La Donna Lee vs Kathy Belter / Wanda Johnson4-6, 6-4, 0-1
L#3 DoublesCammie Singleton / Shelley Stephens vs Carol Dearing / Carolyn Simmons0-6, 1-6
L#4 DoublesColleen Peavy / Kellie Eck vs Alice Huber / Sara Barks6-4, 1-6, 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 3.0 Women Winter Night 40+ 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 2.37 estimated across 16 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.

2.83
Selena Hemphill
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 50% · published
2.78
Lyndsey Dixon
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.77
Kimberly Wilson Curtis
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #1 Singles 33% · published
2.74
Amber Martenstein
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #1 Singles 20% · published 3
2.70
Kellie Eck
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #4 Doubles 33% · published
2.48
Cammie Singleton
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.30
Beverly Boggan
usually #2 Doubles 33%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 2.5
2.27
Shonnda Smith
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
2.21
Sharron Jackson
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
2.20
Colleen Peavy
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 2.5
2.20
Adrienne Walker
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #4 Doubles 17% · published 2.5
2.17
Sondra Leslie
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
2.14
Prudence Meadors
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #4 Doubles 50% · published
2.13
Karen Bowman
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
2.03
Shelley Stephens
usually #3 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
2.01
Becky Tate
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
La Donna Lee
usually #4 Doubles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · 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.

Amber Martenstein + Colleen Peavy3453% games+5.6% vs expected
Prudence Meadors + Sharron Jackson5548% games+5.3% vs expected
Cammie Singleton + Amber Martenstein3545% games+4.7% vs expected
Selena Hemphill + Kellie Eck7851% games+4.2% vs expected
Beverly Boggan + Sondra Leslie4843% games−0.2% vs expected
Becky Tate + Shelley Stephens3836% games−0.6% vs expected
Sondra Leslie + Sharron Jackson3737% games−3.3% vs expected
Karen Bowman + Colleen Peavy2938% games−10.3% vs expected
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.

Selena Hemphill
18W–19L career · 2 lines in 2025
1%88%11%
2.83
Lyndsey Dixon
15W–8L career · 1 line in 2025
2%92%6%
2.78
Kimberly Wilson Curtis
29W–30L career · 3 lines in 2025
3%92%5%
2.77
3
Amber Martenstein
32W–36L career · 5 lines in 2025
4%93%3%
2.74
Kellie Eck
14W–18L career · 3 lines in 2025
7%91%2%
2.70
3
Cammie Singleton
8W–10L career · 1 line in 2025
55%45%<1%
2.48
2.5
Beverly Boggan
15W–23L career · 3 lines in 2025
0%92%8%
2.30
Shonnda Smith
11W–30L career · 2 lines in 2025
0%95%5%
2.27
Sharron Jackson
17W–35L career · 4 lines in 2025
0%98%2%
2.21
2.5
Colleen Peavy
17W–43L career · 4 lines in 2025
0%98%2%
2.20
2.5
Adrienne Walker
10W–25L career · 6 lines in 2025
0%98%2%
2.20
Sondra Leslie
12W–39L career · 4 lines in 2025
0%99%1%
2.17
Prudence Meadors
19W–36L career · 2 lines in 2025
0%>99%<1%
2.14
Karen Bowman
10W–40L career · 4 lines in 2025
0%>99%<1%
2.13
Shelley Stephens
9W–30L career · 4 lines in 2025
0%>99%<1%
2.03
2.5
Becky Tate
7W–24L career · 4 lines in 2025
0%>99%<1%
2.01
La Donna Lee
0W–6L career · 3 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.