Teams

TRC - Jolley

2025 B'ham Spring - 55 & Over Weeknight · 3.5 Women - Thursday

10 players · average NTRP 3.33 / ALABAMA

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2025-03-20vs CCB - TaliaferroLost 12
L#1 DoublesJulie Jolley / Pamela Carr vs Linda Tisdale / Anne Case6-4, 4-6, 0-1
L#2 DoublesHollie Durbin / Celia Kent vs Susan Dukes / Renee Taliaferro2-6, 4-6
W#3 DoublesLaurie Pitts / Joni Roberson vs Dee Dee Newton / Taryn Drennen6-3, 6-4
2025-02-27vs CCB - TaliaferroLost 03
L#1 DoublesPam Spooner Wade / Celia Kent vs Kelley Moore / Mary Lembke1-6, 6-7
L#2 DoublesKelley Roach / Pamela Carr vs Cindy Speake / Yvonne Shelfer4-6, 6-7
L#3 DoublesJoyce Anderson / Julia Simpson vs Dee Dee Newton / Taryn Drennen2-6, 6-2, 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 3.5 Women - Thursday 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 3.18 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.

3.56
Julie Jolley
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.29
Kelley Roach
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.26
Elizabeth Dickey
published 3.5
3.21
Pam Spooner Wade
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.19
Pamela Carr
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
3.17
Joni Roberson
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.11
Celia Kent
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.04
Laurie Pitts
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.01
Julia Simpson
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.01
Hollie Durbin
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
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.

Elizabeth Dickey + Kelley Roach3350% games+0.3% vs expected
Hollie Durbin + Pam Spooner Wade5850% games−0.1% vs expected
Laurie Pitts + Joni Roberson2545% games−0.3% vs expected
Hollie Durbin + Celia Kent3643% games−2.7% vs expected
Joni Roberson + Julie Jolley8649% games−7.5% vs expected
Celia Kent + Pam Spooner Wade3349% games−7.5% vs expected
Celia Kent + Kelley Roach3349% games−8.3% vs expected
Celia Kent + Julie Jolley224 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.

Julie Jolley
66W–33L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%32%68%
3.56
Kelley Roach
16W–20L career · 1 line in 2025
1%94%5%
3.29
3.5
Elizabeth Dickey
14W–13L career · no lines in 2025
2%94%3%
3.26
Pam Spooner Wade
15W–16L career · 1 line in 2025
6%93%1%
3.21
Pamela Carr
2W–9L career · 2 lines in 2025
7%92%1%
3.19
Joni Roberson
17W–34L career · 1 line in 2025
10%89%<1%
3.17
3.5
Celia Kent
25W–31L career · 2 lines in 2025
21%79%<1%
3.11
Laurie Pitts
28W–24L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%37%63%
3.04
Julia Simpson
0W–7L career · 1 line in 2025
46%54%<1%
3.01
3
Hollie Durbin
29W–43L career · type A · 1 line in 2025
<1%47%53%
3.01

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.