Teams

MV HOOPER/HOOVER

2025 FW Adult 18 & Over League - Ladies · Friday Ladies 3.0

13 players · average NTRP 2.90 / TEXAS

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2025-04-18vs RTC DURBORAWLost 23
W#1 DoublesLauren Hollarn / Linda Kiraly vs Cindy Trammell / JULIE PARKE6-0, 6-3
L#1 SinglesChristine Hooper vs Lindsey Anderson1-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesSusie McKenzie / Molly Milner vs Katrina Wagner / Sam Martinez6-1, 1-6, 0-1
L#2 SinglesCharissa Kumar vs Maura Jackson3-6, 4-6
W#3 DoublesChristina Jacobs / Angel Baker vs Mary Buffington / Tara Allen6-4, 6-2
2025-04-11vs STC MILLERWon 31
W#1 SinglesChristine Hooper vs Natasha Chevalier6-1, 6-4
W#2 DoublesMolly Milner / Kim Milam vs Mahtab Abghari / Stephanie Abiodun6-1, 6-2
W#2 SinglesCharissa Kumar vs Diana Ahmad6-4, 4-6, 1-0
L#3 DoublesChristina Jacobs / Julie Neuman vs Rachel Hayes / Ruth Sine2-6, 0-6
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 Friday Ladies 3.0 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 2.78 estimated across 11 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.

3.36
Kim Milam
usually #2 Doubles 43%, also #3 Doubles 29% · published
3.02
Charissa Kumar
usually #2 Singles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3
3.01
Lauren Hollarn
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Singles 25% · published
2.92
Malea Grubb
published
2.88
Linda Kiraly
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.87
Christine Hooper
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 3
2.78
Lauren Arias
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.75
Angel Baker
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.70
Christina Jacobs
usually #3 Doubles 75%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 3
2.27
Julie Neuman
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.05
Debi Arias
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 50% · published 2.5
Kari Jordan
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Molly Milner
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · 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.

Kari Jordan + Lauren Arias123 matchesnot enough data
Angel Baker + Christina Jacobs213 matchesnot enough data
Christine Hooper + Charissa Kumar213 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.

Kim Milam
25W–10L career · 7 lines in 2025
<1%83%16%
3.36
3
Charissa Kumar
25W–21L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%45%55%
3.02
Lauren Hollarn
18W–1L career · 4 lines in 2025
<1%47%53%
3.01
Malea Grubb
3W–18L career · no lines in 2025
73%27%<1%
2.92
Linda Kiraly
12W–10L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%81%19%
2.88
3
Christine Hooper
16W–19L career · 4 lines in 2025
<1%83%17%
2.87
Lauren Arias
7W–7L career · 1 line in 2025
2%92%6%
2.78
3
Angel Baker
2W–2L career · 1 line in 2025
4%93%3%
2.75
3
Christina Jacobs
15W–23L career · 4 lines in 2025
8%91%2%
2.70
Julie Neuman
5W–13L career · 1 line in 2025
0%95%5%
2.27
2.5
Debi Arias
4W–4L career · 2 lines in 2025
0%>99%<1%
2.05
Kari Jordan
7W–6L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Molly Milner
5W–7L career · 3 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.