Teams

Deer, Julie

2025 Mixed 18 & Over-JXN · 3.0 Mixed

11 players · average NTRP 2.75 / MISSISSIPPI

View scouting list →
Schedule11 played
2025-07-22vs Moulds, KatieLost 02
L#1 DoublesTaylor Byrd / Emily Byrd vs Catherine Stoltzfus / John Patton3-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesJulie Deer / Brandon Deer vs Amie Whittington / Stephen Baldwyn0-6, 1-6
2025-07-15vs Hardy, KristinLost 12
L#1 DoublesChip Haynes / Caroline King Haynes vs Leo Liu / Rachel Wiygul7-6, 5-7, 1-0
W#2 DoublesEmily Byrd / Taylor Byrd vs Suresh Alexander / Kayla Saranthus3-6, 7-5, 1-0
L#3 DoublesJulie Deer / Brandon Deer vs Michael Barnard / Jeanna Crowder3-6, 3-6
2025-07-08vs Coins, JimmieLost 03
L#1 DoublesKhelsea Watts / Phillip Watts vs Tori McCray / Dwayne Robinson6-3, 3-6, 0-1
L#2 DoublesRachel Watson / John Watson vs Natalie Holmes / adam alexander4-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesKelly Coffey / Sean Coffey vs Robin Clark / James Robinson2-6, 1-6
2025-07-02vs Thomas, BradleyLost 03
L#1 DoublesJulie Deer / Brandon Deer vs Riley Bennett / Jaime van Dan1-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesChip Haynes / Caroline King Haynes vs Jake Ponder / Sorena Vinson4-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesEmily Byrd / Taylor Byrd vs Courtney Wood / Charles Parker2-6, 6-2, 0-1
2025-06-24vs Vinson, OnsbyLost 02
L#1 DoublesChip Haynes / Caroline King Haynes vs Onsby Vinson / Hayden Perkins0-6, 2-6
L#3 DoublesJulie Deer / Brandon Deer vs Tyler Lantz / Kamryn Lantz2-6, 3-6
2025-06-17vs Resch, AllynLost 01
L#1 DoublesBrandon Deer / Caroline King Haynes vs Katie Bumgarner / Derrick Jones2-6, 2-6
2025-06-10vs Sullivan, AshleyLost 12
L#1 DoublesJulie Deer / Brandon Deer vs Caroline Debeukelaer / Brad Lieb0-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesRachel Watson / John Watson vs Thomas Tynes / Ashley Sullivan6-4, 3-6, 0-1
W#3 DoublesTaylor Byrd / Emily Byrd vs Emily Keefe / Matt Keefe6-0, 6-0
2025-06-03vs Walters, EricLost 02
L#1 DoublesPhillip Watts / Khelsea Watts vs Ryan Engel / Lauren Davis1-6, 5-7
L#3 DoublesTaylor Byrd / Emily Byrd vs Kristopher Hamel / Rose Edmonston1-6, 2-6
2025-05-27vs Sherrod, DeAngeloLost 02
L#1 DoublesCaroline King Haynes / Sean Coffey vs Julio Morales / Tamara Jackson1-6, 2-6
L#3 DoublesKhelsea Watts / Phillip Watts vs Cece Sherrod / Matthew Weeks1-6, 3-6
2025-05-20vs Brown, BaileyLost 02
L#1 DoublesJulie Deer / Brandon Deer vs Jamie Howard / Carter Higgins1-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesTaylor Byrd / Emily Byrd vs Weber Herbison / Darby Wallis3-6, 2-6
2025-05-13vs Myers, ChadLost 03
L#1 DoublesRachel Watson / John Watson vs John Stanton / Anne Stanton0-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesCaroline King Haynes / Chip Haynes vs Brittany Myers / Blair Williamson0-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesSean Coffey / Kelly Coffey vs Autumn Smith / Christian Medina0-6, 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 standings5 teams · 3.0 Mixed
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Myers, Chad11028512160
2Sherrod, DeAngelo9227612140
3Thomas, Bradley65151839292
4Hardy, Kristin3792146330
5Deer, Julie01142959366

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 2.65 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.

3.19
Caroline King Haynes
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
2.79
Rachel Watson
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
2.42
Kelly Coffey
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Brandon Deer
usually #1 Doubles 57%, also #3 Doubles 29% · published 2.5
Emily Byrd
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 2.5
2.22
Chip Haynes
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 2.5
Julie Deer
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
Khelsea Watts
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
Phillip Watts
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
Sean Coffey
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
Taylor Byrd
usually #3 Doubles 50%, 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.

Brandon Deer + Julie Deer0620% gamesnot enough data
Taylor Byrd + Emily Byrd2443% gamesnot enough data
Chip Haynes + Caroline King Haynes044 matchesnot enough data
Phillip Watts + Khelsea Watts033 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
Caroline King Haynes
24W–29L career · 6 lines in 2025
8%92%1%
3.19
Rachel Watson
17W–11L career · 3 lines in 2025
1%93%5%
2.79
Kelly Coffey
3W–7L career · 2 lines in 2025
0%73%27%
2.42
2.5
Brandon Deer
0W–7L career · type M · 7 lines in 2025
not enough data
2.5
Emily Byrd
2W–5L career · type M · 6 lines in 2025
not enough data
2.5
Chip Haynes
1W–8L career · type M · 4 lines in 2025
0%98%2%
2.22
Julie Deer
1W–12L career · 6 lines in 2025
not enough data
Khelsea Watts
4W–14L career · 3 lines in 2025
not enough data
Phillip Watts
0W–3L career · 3 lines in 2025
not enough data
Sean Coffey
0W–3L career · 3 lines in 2025
not enough data
Taylor Byrd
3W–6L career · 6 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.