Teams

RID SELKING

2025 FW Ladies 18 Social Doubles Summer League · Friday morning 3.0 ladies

10 players · average NTRP 3.00 / TEXAS

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2025-08-01vs RC MOORESplit 11
W#1 DoublesMEREDITH CODY / Merry Milliken vs Julia Gadberry / Katie Nichols6-2, 6-1
L#2 DoublesIvy Ellis / Ashley Davis vs Chandler Hallum / Kathryn Little4-6, 4-6
2025-07-25vs RC MOOREWon 21
W#1 DoublesMelinda Delk / Claire Hollek vs Hannah Witten / Elizabeth Bruce6-3, 6-2
W#2 DoublesLauren Selking / MEREDITH CODY vs Chandler Hallum / Catherine Davis6-0, 6-0
L#3 DoublesJeanie Armstrong / Ashley Davis vs Katie Nichols / Elizabeth Deegan1-6, 1-6
2025-07-11vs DCC KYRISHWon 20
W#1 DoublesMEREDITH CODY / Melinda Delk vs Georgia Barnes / Kristen Lubbers4-6, 6-2, 1-0
W#2 DoublesMerry Milliken / Natalie Moore vs Danica Brown / Mary Cooper6-4, 0-6, 1-0
2025-06-20vs RC MOOREWon 30
W#1 DoublesClaire Hollek / Melinda Delk vs Catherine Davis / Christie Dull6-2, 6-1
W#2 DoublesNatalie Moore / Ivy Ellis vs Chandler Hallum / McKenzie DePriest6-1, 6-4
W#3 DoublesJeanie Armstrong / Megan Quirk vs Catherine Davenport / Julia Gadberry6-1, 7-5
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 Friday morning 3.0 ladies 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 2.73 estimated across 10 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
MEREDITH CODY
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
2.97
Melinda Delk
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.83
Claire Hollek
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.80
Lauren Selking
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.80
Megan Quirk
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.78
Merry Milliken
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
2.73
Ivy Ellis
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.64
Natalie Moore
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.54
Whitney Perry
published
2.08
Jeanie Armstrong
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.

Melinda Delk + MEREDITH CODY9272% games+20.2% vs expected
Lauren Selking + MEREDITH CODY9257% games+16.2% vs expected
Melinda Delk + Claire Hollek5356% games+12.6% 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.

MEREDITH CODY
31W–10L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%10%90%
3.18
Melinda Delk
20W–14L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%59%41%
2.97
3
Claire Hollek
8W–5L career · 2 lines in 2025
1%88%11%
2.83
Lauren Selking
18W–15L career · 1 line in 2025
2%91%7%
2.80
Megan Quirk
13W–8L career · 1 line in 2025
2%91%7%
2.80
Merry Milliken
14W–5L career · 2 lines in 2025
0%2%98%
2.78
Ivy Ellis
5W–11L career · 2 lines in 2025
5%92%3%
2.73
Natalie Moore
5W–5L career · 2 lines in 2025
16%84%1%
2.64
Whitney Perry
6W–6L career · no lines in 2025
38%61%<1%
2.54
Jeanie Armstrong
9W–11L career · 2 lines in 2025
0%>99%<1%
2.08

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.