Teams

Taylor-CCC

2025 Tri-Level 18 & Over-DLT · Women 3.0, 3.5, 4.0

16 players · average NTRP 3.50 / MISSISSIPPI

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2025-08-10vs Swafford-CCCLost 12
W#1 DoublesMary Jeffreys / Georgia Wilson Tindall vs Diane Chenault / Chloe Darden6-2, 6-1
L#2 DoublesEmmy Millwood / Beth Joel vs Katherine Swafford / Lane Purvis3-6, 7-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesMari Micci Bramuchi / Whitney Morgan vs Samantha Myers / Maghan Ashmore3-6, 2-6
2025-08-05vs Sykes-TravelLost 12
W#1 DoublesLisa Cooley / Susan Morgan vs Lane Lyon / Tracy Etheridge7-5, 6-1
L#2 DoublesEmmy Millwood / Naomi Jennings vs Melissa Hazlewood / Callie Gordon5-7, 3-6
L#3 DoublesTaylor Ward / Kelsey Spradling vs Haley Hamrick / Lauren Brocato6-4, 3-6, 1-0
2025-07-27vs Sykes-TravelWon 21
W#1 DoublesTori Gaines / Georgia Wilson Tindall vs Lane Lyon / Tracy Etheridge6-2, 4-6, 1-0
L#2 DoublesNaomi Jennings / Stephanie Farris vs Brianne DeLoach / Shelby Ballinger1-6, 1-6
W#3 DoublesMaribeth Crews / Whitney Morgan vs Meredith Etheridge / Brittany McTeer6-2, 6-3
2025-07-22vs Swafford-CCCLost 12
W#1 DoublesMary Jeffreys / Lisa Cooley vs Christy Prine / Avery Johnson6-1, 6-2
L#2 DoublesKathryn Boykin / Beth Joel vs Kaley Joel / Lane Purvis4-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesKelsey Spradling / Taylor Ward vs Megan Wicker / Maghan Ashmore5-7, 7-5, 0-1
2025-07-20vs Sykes-TravelWon 21
L#1 DoublesSusan Morgan / Lisa Cooley vs Sara Hester / Lane Lyon6-3, 6-7, 0-1
W#2 DoublesKathryn Boykin / Beth Joel vs Brianne DeLoach / Susan Adams6-3, 3-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesMari Micci Bramuchi / Whitney Morgan vs Latoya Sykes / Lindsey Sheffield6-3, 6-2
2025-07-17vs Swafford-CCCLost 12
L#1 DoublesTori Gaines / Beth Joel vs Lane Purvis / Avery Johnson3-6, 6-4, 0-1
W#2 DoublesNaomi Jennings / Stephanie Farris vs Katherine Swafford / Callie Rose Rocconi6-4, 2-6, 1-0
L#3 DoublesKelsey Spradling / Mari Micci Bramuchi vs Teresa Reed / Maghan Ashmore4-6, 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 standings for Women 3.0, 3.5, 4.0 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 2.89 estimated across 14 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.

3.29
3.18
Lisa Cooley
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.13
Susan Morgan
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.11
Whitney Morgan
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.98
Tori Gaines
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.95
Georgia Wilson Tindall
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.93
Beth Joel
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published 3.5
2.87
Mary Jeffreys
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.81
Emmy Millwood
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.78
Taylor Ward
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
2.66
Stephanie Farris
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
2.66
Maribeth Crews
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
2.60
Kelsey Spradling
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
2.57
Kathryn Boykin
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
Mari Micci Bramuchi
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
Naomi Jennings
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #1 Doubles 25% · 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.

Stephanie Farris + Beth Joel3257% games+11.7% vs expected
Susan Morgan + Lisa Cooley6162% games+5.9% vs expected
Taylor Ward + Kelsey Spradling7853% games−3.1% vs expected
Kathryn Boykin + Beth Joel224 matchesnot enough data
Stephanie Farris + Naomi Jennings224 matchesnot enough data
Blair Campbell Taylor + Beth Joel314 matchesnot enough data
Whitney Morgan + Mari Micci Bramuchi314 matchesnot enough data
Tori Gaines + Beth Joel213 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.

3.5
Blair Campbell Taylor
10W–10L career · no lines in 2025
2%91%7%
3.29
Lisa Cooley
12W–3L career · 3 lines in 2025
99%1%<1%
3.18
Susan Morgan
13W–9L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%17%83%
3.13
Whitney Morgan
10W–2L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%22%78%
3.11
Tori Gaines
9W–3L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%55%45%
2.98
Georgia Wilson Tindall
6W–6L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%64%36%
2.95
3.5
Beth Joel
14W–20L career · 5 lines in 2025
70%30%<1%
2.93
Mary Jeffreys
7W–1L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%82%18%
2.87
Emmy Millwood
6W–13L career · 2 lines in 2025
91%9%<1%
2.81
Taylor Ward
25W–17L career · 4 lines in 2025
0%2%98%
2.78
Stephanie Farris
23W–16L career · 3 lines in 2025
0%12%88%
2.66
Maribeth Crews
19W–8L career · 4 lines in 2025
0%13%87%
2.66
Kelsey Spradling
24W–17L career · 6 lines in 2025
0%23%77%
2.60
Kathryn Boykin
15W–12L career · 3 lines in 2025
0%32%68%
2.57
Mari Micci Bramuchi
11W–8L career · 6 lines in 2025
not enough data
Naomi Jennings
4W–9L career · 4 lines in 2025
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.