Teams

Power/Sharp

2026 KS 18 & Over Adult Indoor League · 3.5 Women

14 players · average NTRP 3.50 / KANSAS

View scouting list →
Schedule8 played
2026-04-12vs Swindler/Harris-CrestviewLost 02
L#1 DoublesMJ Sharp / Pam Geihsler vs Starburst Murphy / Katie Hund2-6, 7-6, 0-1
L#2 DoublesShelly Power / Megan Salas vs Lea Ann Mcilvain / Sara Streich2-6, 1-6
2026-04-12vs Teal/Moxley-WCCLost 02
L#1 DoublesMegan Salas / MJ Sharp vs Danielle Hoover / Mariah Moxley6-1, 5-7, 0-1
L#2 DoublesPam Geihsler / Shelly Power vs Jaclyn Reilly / Whitney Ward4-6, 6-7
2026-03-22vs Dinkel/CarterWon 21
L#1 DoublesDeby Vidricksen / Stacey Davis vs Linda Anderson / Peggy Powell6-1, 4-6, 0-1
W#1 SinglesMJ Sharp vs Kim Dinkel6-2, 6-4
W#2 DoublesDana Huffaker / Shirlene Shepard vs Randi Kay Graham / Diane Ball6-2, 6-4
2026-03-22vs Swindler/Harris-CrestviewLost 12
W#1 DoublesLaurel Driskell / Michelle Peck vs Sandy Wegner / Traci Swindler6-4, 7-5
L#1 SinglesShelly Power vs Lea Ann Mcilvain4-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesDeby Vidricksen / Callie Rost vs Valerie Cowan / Kellie Rhea1-6, 4-6
2026-03-15vs Bette/Hill-WichitaWon 21
W#1 DoublesMichelle Peck / Pam Geihsler vs Dana Hill / Cathy Rinehart6-4, 6-3
L#1 SinglesShelley Schroeder vs Sara Peiffer1-6, 1-6
W#2 DoublesMegan Salas / Allyson Salas vs Bobbie Lee / Matawee Paksin6-4, 6-1
2026-03-15vs Dinkel/CarterWon 21
W#1 DoublesMJ Sharp / Pam Geihsler vs Peggy Powell / Nallely Romo-Neuray6-4, 6-1
L#1 SinglesDeby Vidricksen vs Kym Ratcliffe6-3, 6-7, 0-1
W#2 DoublesShelley Schroeder / Megan Salas vs Cheryl Brock / Randi Kay Graham6-3, 3-5, 1-0
2026-03-08vs Teal/Moxley-WCCLost 03
L#1 DoublesDana Huffaker / Deby Vidricksen vs Danielle Hoover / Mariah Moxley0-6, 0-6
L#1 SinglesLaurel Driskell vs Jaclyn Reilly4-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesAllyson Salas / MJ Sharp vs Gina Cole / Allyson Teal3-6, 3-6
2026-03-08vs Bette/Hill-WichitaWon 20
W#1 DoublesShelly Power / Stacey Davis vs Dana Hill / Paula Bette7-6, 6-3
W#2 DoublesShirlene Shepard / Callie Rost vs Bobbie Lee / Erica Combs6-3, 6-4
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 · 3.5 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Teal/Moxley-WCC7119518158
2Dinkel/Carter44121229215
3Power/Sharp44101429224
4Swindler/Harris-Crestview35101431222
5Bette/Hill-Wichita2691534240

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 3.04 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.

3.24
Stacey Davis
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.16
MJ Sharp
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published
3.10
Shirlene Shepard
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.10
Pam Geihsler
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
3.08
Dana Huffaker
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.06
Callie Rost
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.03
Laurel Driskell
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.02
Allyson Salas
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
2.99
Deby Vidricksen
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 25% · published 3.5
2.98
Shelley Schroeder
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
2.96
Megan Salas
usually #1 Doubles 44%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
2.79
Shelly Power
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published
Michelle Peck
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Samantha Angell
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.

Shelley Schroeder + Michelle Peck7260% games+15.7% vs expected
Shelley Schroeder + Dana Huffaker4352% games+12.5% vs expected
Megan Salas + MJ Sharp12463% games+11.4% vs expected
Megan Salas + Allyson Salas11263% games+9.2% vs expected
Dana Huffaker + Deby Vidricksen12755% games+9.1% vs expected
Michelle Peck + Dana Huffaker10553% games+4.8% vs expected
Allyson Salas + MJ Sharp3248% games+3.7% vs expected
Shelly Power + Dana Huffaker6848% games+2.4% 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.

Stacey Davis
12W–8L career · 2 lines in 2026
4%93%3%
3.24
MJ Sharp
63W–27L career · 5 lines in 2026
13%86%1%
3.16
Shirlene Shepard
60W–54L career · 2 lines in 2026
23%77%<1%
3.10
Pam Geihsler
76W–64L career · 4 lines in 2026
23%77%<1%
3.10
3.5
Dana Huffaker
57W–42L career · 2 lines in 2026
29%71%<1%
3.08
3.5
Callie Rost
4W–7L career · 2 lines in 2026
35%65%<1%
3.06
Laurel Driskell
3W–4L career · 2 lines in 2026
41%59%<1%
3.03
3.5
Allyson Salas
34W–10L career · 2 lines in 2026
43%56%<1%
3.02
3.5
Deby Vidricksen
40W–27L career · 4 lines in 2026
53%47%<1%
2.99
Shelley Schroeder
47W–35L career · 2 lines in 2026
55%45%<1%
2.98
Megan Salas
54W–26L career · 9 lines in 2026
<1%60%40%
2.96
Shelly Power
46W–38L career · 4 lines in 2026
93%7%<1%
2.79
Michelle Peck
48W–38L career · 2 lines in 2026
not enough data
Samantha Angell
42W–49L career · no 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.