Teams

Scheepers/LHCC/Foothills

2026 Foothills Singles 18 & over · 2.5 Singles Women

7 players · average NTRP 2.50 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2026-08-04vs Kim/RB/FoothillsLost 01
L#1 SinglesDeborah Cashion vs Nancy Szabados Thomas0-6, 3-6
2026-07-28vs Kim/RB/FoothillsLost 03
L#1 SinglesJessica Gibney vs Allison Alexander4-6, 5-7
L#2 SinglesMandi Scovern vs Nancy Szabados Thomas0-6, 1-6
L#3 SinglesDeborah Cashion vs Natalie Armstrong1-6, 2-6
2026-07-21vs Kim/RB/FoothillsLost 12
L#1 SinglesBlair Scheepers vs Allison Alexander4-6, 1-6
L#2 SinglesMollyrose Wright vs Nancy Szabados Thomas2-6, 1-6
W#3 SinglesJessica Gibney vs Natalie Armstrong6-3, 6-3
2026-07-14vs Kim/RB/FoothillsLost 12
W#1 SinglesBlair Scheepers vs Jessie Dale6-1, 6-3
L#2 SinglesMandi Scovern vs Deanna Thomas0-6, 0-6
L#3 SinglesDeborah Cashion vs Natalie Armstrong1-6, 2-6
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 standings1 teams · 2.5 Singles Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Scheepers/LHCC/Foothills03271495

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 2.27 estimated across 7 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.

2.65
Blair Scheepers
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 2.5
2.54
Carrie Neal
usually #2 Singles 100% · published 2.5
2.50
Jessica Gibney
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #3 Singles 50% · published
2.38
Mollyrose Wright
usually #3 Singles 75%, also #2 Singles 25% · published 2.5
2.01
Deborah Cashion
usually #3 Singles 67%, also #1 Singles 33% · published 2.5
1.94
Jamey Cost
published
1.88
Mandi Scovern
usually #2 Singles 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.

Mollyrose Wright + Carrie Neal5067% games+18.5% vs expected
Mollyrose Wright + Blair Scheepers15658% games+6.0% vs expected
Deborah Cashion + Blair Scheepers6741% games−4.2% vs expected
Deborah Cashion + Mollyrose Wright1837% games−5.3% vs expected
Deborah Cashion + Mandi Scovern044 matchesnot enough data
Jessica Gibney + Blair Scheepers314 matchesnot enough data
Blair Scheepers + Carrie Neal314 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.

2.5
Blair Scheepers
58W–51L career · 2 lines in 2026
0%15%85%
2.65
2.5
Carrie Neal
17W–6L career · type S · 1 line in 2026
0%38%62%
2.54
Jessica Gibney
14W–10L career · 2 lines in 2026
0%51%49%
2.50
2.5
Mollyrose Wright
50W–75L career · 4 lines in 2026
0%80%20%
2.38
2.5
Deborah Cashion
35W–136L career · 3 lines in 2026
0%>99%<1%
2.01
Jamey Cost
3W–4L career · no lines in 2026
0%>99%<1%
1.94
Mandi Scovern
1W–11L career · 2 lines in 2026
0%>99%<1%
1.88

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.