Teams

DH - Hailes/Montjoy

2026 Adult 40 & Over-GC · Women 4.0

11 players · average NTRP 4.00 / MISSISSIPPI

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2026-05-05vs Letonova BBTCLost 13
L#1 DoublesStephanie Hardie / Lucy Stevens vs Dianne Holloway / Lynette Cooper3-6, 1-6
L#1 SinglesKimberly Keel vs Shelly Williams1-6, 1-6
W#2 DoublesMary Ann Strickland / Nicole Montagnet vs Angie Simmons / Julie Bradley2-6, 6-4, 1-0
L#3 DoublesChristina Robinson / Jennifer Hailes vs Lisa Mabry Smith / Julie West3-6, 3-6
2026-04-23vs Letonova BBTCLost 03
L#1 DoublesJennifer Hailes / Mary Ann Strickland vs Dianne Holloway / Lynette Cooper6-7, 6-2, 0-1
L#2 DoublesKimberly Keel / Nicole Montagnet vs Julie Bradley / Danna Day4-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesLaurraine McKenzie / Stephanie Hardie vs April Mechatto / Chase Bradford5-7, 5-7
2026-04-13vs TOCC - Render-Leach 40sWon 31
W#1 DoublesChristina Robinson / Mary Ann Strickland vs Cynthia Render-Leach / Carla Cleary6-4, 6-0
L#1 SinglesJennifer Hailes vs Andrea May6-3, 3-6, 0-1
W#2 DoublesNicole Montagnet / Kimberly Keel vs Stephanie Allison / Shari Pol6-3, 6-2
W#3 DoublesLaurraine McKenzie / Stephanie Hardie vs Lori Dewitt / Kimberly Adams6-3, 1-6, 1-0
2026-03-17vs BBTC - MooreLost 12
L#1 DoublesMary Ann Strickland / Michelle Savoy vs Kathleen Marlowe / Cory Brainard1-6, 2-6
L#1 SinglesLucy Stevens vs Jackie Orgler7-6, 4-6, 0-1
W#2 DoublesChristina Robinson / Stephanie Hardie vs Regan Foster / Gwen Urbati6-2, 6-0
2026-03-02vs BBTC - MooreWon 21
W#1 DoublesChristina Robinson / Margaret Morgan-Bowman vs Paula Moore / Amber Juraszek6-2, 6-1
L#2 DoublesJennifer Hailes / Mary Kay Walk vs Kathleen Marlowe / Cory Brainard3-6, 2-6
W#3 DoublesNicole Montagnet / Kimberly Keel vs Jan Salloum / Regan Foster6-4, 6-2
2026-02-26vs TOCC - Render-Leach 40sLost 13
L#1 DoublesNicole Montagnet / Margaret Morgan-Bowman vs Andrea May / Shari Pol3-6, 4-6
L#1 SinglesMary Kay Walk vs Cynthia Render-Leach6-4, 2-6, 0-1
W#2 DoublesJennifer Hailes / Stephanie Hardie vs Kimberly Adams / Lori Dewitt7-5, 6-4
L#3 DoublesLaurraine McKenzie / Kimberly Keel vs Carla Cleary / Stacie Zorn3-6, 6-7
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 standings4 teams · Women 4.0
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Letonova BBTC6017716164
2TOCC - Render-Leach 40s24131128227
3BBTC - Moore2491531215
4DH - Hailes/Montjoy2491532227

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 3.29 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.

3.61
Mary Ann Strickland
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
3.52
Christina Robinson
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 4
3.43
Lucy Stevens
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
3.36
Laurraine McKenzie
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.36
Nicole Montagnet
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #3 Doubles 20% · published
3.35
Margaret Morgan-Bowman
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.21
Jennifer Hailes
usually #2 Doubles 40%, also #1 Doubles 20% · published
3.15
Kimberly Keel
usually #2 Doubles 33%, also #1 Singles 22% · published
3.04
Stephanie Hardie
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
2.83
Mary Kay Walk
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 50% · published
Michelle Savoy
usually #1 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.

Jennifer Hailes + Stephanie Hardie6748% games+11.3% vs expected
Kimberly Keel + Nicole Montagnet8257% games+10.0% vs expected
Mary Ann Strickland + Michelle Savoy134 matchesnot enough data
Mary Ann Strickland + Nicole Montagnet314 matchesnot enough data
Laurraine McKenzie + Stephanie Hardie134 matchesnot enough data
Laurraine McKenzie + Jennifer Hailes123 matchesnot enough data
Mary Kay Walk + Jennifer Hailes213 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.

Mary Ann Strickland
13W–17L career · 4 lines in 2026
22%78%<1%
3.61
4
Christina Robinson
21W–13L career · 4 lines in 2026
43%56%<1%
3.52
Lucy Stevens
13W–16L career · 6 lines in 2026
<1%70%30%
3.43
Laurraine McKenzie
8W–16L career · 3 lines in 2026
84%16%<1%
3.36
Nicole Montagnet
38W–17L career · 5 lines in 2026
<1%1%99%
3.36
Margaret Morgan-Bowman
4W–6L career · 2 lines in 2026
86%14%<1%
3.35
Jennifer Hailes
23W–27L career · 5 lines in 2026
<1%6%94%
3.21
Kimberly Keel
23W–10L career · 9 lines in 2026
<1%15%85%
3.15
Stephanie Hardie
44W–31L career · 9 lines in 2026
0%<1%>99%
3.04
Mary Kay Walk
10W–22L career · 2 lines in 2026
1%88%11%
2.83
Michelle Savoy
1W–5L career · 1 line 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.