Teams

Halstead - Brumley

2026 Adult 18 & Over - GC · Women 3.0

13 players · average NTRP 3.00 / MISSISSIPPI

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2026-05-07vs BBTC-MATTHEWS 3.0 WLost 12
W#1 DoublesKim Lyons / Alison Campbell vs Rebecca Powers / Tyler Ash6-1, 6-3
L#1 SinglesCaitlyn Chapman Akers vs Stacey Rishel2-6, 2-6
L#2 SinglesMeagan Baskin vs Rachael Duda2-6, 5-7
2026-04-22vs BBTC - DenmarkLost 04
L#1 DoublesAngela Vo / Meagan Baskin vs Jaime Denmark / DeAnn Fontenot2-6, 0-6
L#1 SinglesAlison Campbell vs Amy Knight7-6, 1-6, 0-1
L#2 DoublesStacy Reichel / Kelly Pilger vs Kathleen Mayer / Brittany Chowske6-3, 2-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesSchyler St Amant / Teresa Parrish vs Alyson Smith / Lindsey Byrd4-6, 1-6
2026-04-01vs BBTC - Brehm 18'sWon 40
W#1 DoublesMary Brumley / Kelly Pilger vs Shirley Brehm / Tina Murray6-1, 7-6
W#2 DoublesStacy Reichel / Carlie Saylor vs Pam Berdine / Jami Lloyd6-4, 5-7, 1-0
W#2 SinglesMeagan Baskin vs Joni Creel6-1, 7-5
W#3 DoublesAlison Campbell / Angela Vo vs Lynn Hebert / Ana Hebert6-2, 6-0
2026-03-30vs Mitchell TOCCWon 30
W#1 DoublesKim Lyons / Teresa Parrish vs Tara Mitchell / Holly French6-4, 6-1
W#1 SinglesMeagan Baskin vs Lindsey OConnell6-3, 6-1
W#2 DoublesAngela Vo / Elise Bourgeois vs Michelle Smith / Nicole Huffman6-1, 6-1
2026-03-18vs Craddock - BiloxiWon 41
W#1 DoublesCynthia Baggett / Elise Bourgeois vs Rebecca Atchison / Courtney Hall6-1, 6-1
L#1 SinglesAngela Vo vs Sarah Craddock7-6, 4-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesToni Fillmore / Kelly Pilger vs Cherie Griffith / Jillian Powell6-0, 6-1
W#2 SinglesCarlie Saylor vs Jennifer Mitchell6-1, 6-2
W#3 DoublesLisa Chapman / Caitlyn Chapman Akers vs Michelle Stogner / Taylor Johnson6-0, 6-1
2026-03-04vs SRYC -DiSantiLost 23
L#1 DoublesKim Lyons / Toni Fillmore vs Adelaide Moore / Mandy Flurry7-5, 1-6, 0-1
L#1 SinglesKelly Pilger vs Stephanie Chapman3-6, 2-6
W#2 DoublesMary Brumley / Teresa Parrish vs Charlotte Gattis / Mary Lang6-3, 6-7, 1-0
L#2 SinglesSchyler St Amant vs Katy Boyer2-6, 4-6
W#3 DoublesCynthia Baggett / Carlie Saylor vs Tracy Jackson-Wilson / Madison Ward6-3, 6-1
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 standings5 teams · Women 3.0
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Halstead - Brumley42191124194
2BBTC-MATTHEWS 3.0 W33161432253
3BBTC - Brehm 18's24121837262
4Craddock - Biloxi24111941270
5Mitchell TOCC0642653325

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 2.74 estimated across 12 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.

2.97
Kelly Pilger
usually #2 Singles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
2.94
Caitlyn Chapman Akers
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3
2.92
Mary Brumley
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
2.85
Carlie Saylor
usually #2 Singles 33%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.83
Toni Fillmore
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
2.81
Elise Bourgeois
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
2.71
Meagan Baskin
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #1 Singles 25% · published
2.66
Angela Vo
usually #1 Singles 40%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published 3
2.63
Teresa Parrish
usually #3 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published
2.59
Cynthia Baggett
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3
2.56
Alison Campbell
usually #1 Doubles 33%, also #1 Singles 33% · published 3
2.35
Schyler St Amant
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
Stacy Reichel
usually #2 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.

Mary Brumley + Kelly Pilger8167% games+12.3% vs expected
Elise Bourgeois + Mary Brumley224 matchesnot enough data
Mary Brumley + Toni Fillmore404 matchesnot enough data
Toni Fillmore + Kelly Pilger303 matchesnot enough data
Alison Campbell + Stacy Reichel033 matchesnot enough data
Carlie Saylor + Stacy Reichel123 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.

Kelly Pilger
39W–30L career · 6 lines in 2026
<1%58%42%
2.97
3
Caitlyn Chapman Akers
11W–13L career · type S · 4 lines in 2026
<1%65%34%
2.94
Mary Brumley
45W–29L career · 6 lines in 2026
<1%72%27%
2.92
3
Carlie Saylor
22W–9L career · 3 lines in 2026
1%84%15%
2.85
Toni Fillmore
56W–33L career · 2 lines in 2026
1%87%12%
2.83
Elise Bourgeois
12W–8L career · 2 lines in 2026
1%90%9%
2.81
Meagan Baskin
16W–3L career · 4 lines in 2026
6%92%2%
2.71
3
Angela Vo
20W–43L career · 10 lines in 2026
13%86%1%
2.66
Teresa Parrish
7W–8L career · 5 lines in 2026
18%81%<1%
2.63
3
Cynthia Baggett
20W–28L career · 2 lines in 2026
27%73%<1%
2.59
3
Alison Campbell
17W–24L career · 3 lines in 2026
32%68%<1%
2.56
Schyler St Amant
11W–21L career · 2 lines in 2026
86%14%<1%
2.35
Stacy Reichel
4W–9L 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.