Teams

Laura Davis - Manor

2025 Montgomery Doubles Fall Women · Montgomery Doubles Fall 3.0 Women

12 players · average NTRP 3.00 / MARYLAND

View scouting list →
Schedule8 played
2025-12-17vs Wager - CongressionalWon 21
W#1 DoublesKatherine Mathis / Natalie Silverman vs Alison Wager / Stephanie van Pelt6-3, 7-5
L#2 DoublesKatie Brand / Julie Georgelakos vs Samantha Brown / Jennifer Love1-6, 2-6
W#3 DoublesAbbie Brady / Grace Coleman vs Ketrina Sharp / Amy Moore6-2, 6-3
2025-12-09vs Hall/Sampson - AHCLost 03
L#1 DoublesKatie Brand / Katherine Mathis vs Susan Greenwood / Mariechen Bresler2-6, 4-6
L#2 DoublesMarilyn Mess / Grace Coleman vs Karen Rabin / Renee Jenkins-Woodard2-6, 2-6
L#3 DoublesSarah Yeomans / Mary Lou Goehrung vs Nancy Davis / Debbie Talesnick3-6, 1-6
2025-12-03vs Tiffany Laeng - NorbeckWon 21
W#1 DoublesKatherine Mathis / Glynis Kazanjian vs Jaimie McDowell / Celeste Kerner6-4, 6-1
L#2 DoublesLaura Davis / Grace Coleman vs Katie Harris / Shelley Golinsky1-6, 2-6
W#3 DoublesSarah Yeomans / Julie Georgelakos vs Cindy Miner / Emily Khayami6-3, 6-3
2025-11-24vs Cobb - Wise AcesWon 21
W#1 DoublesLaura Davis / Julie Georgelakos vs Linda Wong / CLAUDIA BLACKBURN6-0, 6-4
W#2 DoublesGrace Coleman / Marilyn Mess vs Kelley Stone / Melissa Cobb7-6, 5-3
L#3 DoublesAbbie Brady / Mary Lou Goehrung vs Rhonda Condron / Caroline Santa-cruz Revis1-6, 1-6
2025-11-20vs Wager - CongressionalLost 02
L#1 DoublesKatie Brand / Noreen Suzuki vs Amy Moore / Kristin Stipicevic1-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesMary Lou Goehrung / Laura Davis vs Tracy Aschenbach / Christine O'connell3-6, 6-7
2025-11-03vs Cobb - Wise AcesLost 03
L#1 DoublesGlynis Kazanjian / Natalie Silverman vs Melissa Lim / Cara Hur1-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesKatie Brand / Noreen Suzuki vs CLAUDIA BLACKBURN / Linda Wong3-6, 4-6
L#3 DoublesMary Lou Goehrung / Marilyn Mess vs Rhonda Condron / Kelley Stone1-6, 2-6
2025-10-30vs Pinto - PlayersLost 12
W#1 DoublesGlynis Kazanjian / Natalie Silverman vs Sheila Maloney / Tracy Koretsky6-4, 3-6
L#2 DoublesHelen Campbell / Katie Brand vs Elizabeth Liang / Salta Liebert0-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesNoreen Suzuki / Laura Davis vs Beverly Taylor / Christine Kluh1-6, 4-6
2025-10-24vs Pinto - PlayersLost 03
L#1 DoublesLaura Davis / Katie Brand vs Palmer Dorn / Saira Malik4-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesAbbie Brady / Marilyn Mess vs Beverly Taylor / Nancy Pinto4-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesJulie Georgelakos / Mary Lou Goehrung vs Wendy Wasserman / Mara Nelson-Grynaviski2-6, 3-6
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 Montgomery Doubles Fall 3.0 Women 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 2.49 estimated across 8 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.

2.62
Laura Davis
usually #2 Doubles 40%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published
2.62
Katherine Mathis
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.61
Abbie Brady
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.57
Sarah Yeomans
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.50
Julie Georgelakos
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
2.38
Helen Campbell
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.37
Mary Lou Goehrung
usually #3 Doubles 80%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published
2.24
Katie Brand
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
Glynis Kazanjian
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Marilyn Mess
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
Natalie Silverman
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Noreen Suzuki
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #2 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.

Abbie Brady + Laura Davis1451% gamesnot enough data
Laura Davis + Katie Brand044 matchesnot enough data
Marilyn Mess + Abbie Brady123 matchesnot enough data
Marilyn Mess + Mary Lou Goehrung033 matchesnot enough data
Abbie Brady + Mary Lou Goehrung033 matchesnot enough data
Laura Davis + Katherine Mathis123 matchesnot enough data
Laura Davis + Mary Lou Goehrung033 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.

Laura Davis
5W–18L career · 5 lines in 2025
18%82%<1%
2.62
Katherine Mathis
3W–8L career · 3 lines in 2025
18%81%<1%
2.62
3
Abbie Brady
5W–14L career · 3 lines in 2025
20%80%<1%
2.61
Sarah Yeomans
1W–4L career · 2 lines in 2025
29%71%<1%
2.57
Julie Georgelakos
2W–8L career · 4 lines in 2025
52%48%<1%
2.50
3
Helen Campbell
1W–5L career · type S · 1 line in 2025
81%19%<1%
2.38
Mary Lou Goehrung
3W–18L career · 5 lines in 2025
85%15%<1%
2.37
Katie Brand
0W–17L career · 6 lines in 2025
98%2%<1%
2.24
Glynis Kazanjian
2W–1L career · 3 lines in 2025
not enough data
Marilyn Mess
2W–10L career · 4 lines in 2025
not enough data
Natalie Silverman
2W–1L career · 3 lines in 2025
not enough data
Noreen Suzuki
0W–3L 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.