Teams

55+ Ivey Tri level-Columbus-MTC

2024 Tri-Level 55 & Over-EC · Women 4.0, 3.5, 3.0

6 players · average NTRP 3.33 / MISSISSIPPI

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2024-08-08vs 2024 Bearden TriLevel 3.0-4.0Won 30
W#1 DoublesCherie Ivey / Karen Crosby vs Karen Vickers / Kim Prestridge4-6, 7-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesCyndi Sullivan / Leslie Webber vs Catherine van Asselt / Ann Swedenburg7-6, 3-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesChristy Dickerson / Dawn Branton vs Patricia Faver / Allyson Jones6-4, 1-6, 1-0
2024-07-30vs 2024 Bearden TriLevel 3.0-4.0Lost 12
L#1 DoublesCherie Ivey / Karen Crosby vs Kim Cadenhead / Kim Prestridge3-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesCyndi Sullivan / Missy Brown vs Catherine van Asselt / Bette Rhea3-6, 0-6
W#3 DoublesMona Howell / Dawn Branton vs Suzy Buttrey / Angela White4-6, 6-3, 1-0
2024-07-18vs 2024 Bearden TriLevel 3.0-4.0Lost 12
L#1 DoublesCherie Ivey / Karen Crosby vs Kim Prestridge / Jennifer Falkner5-7, 4-6
W#2 DoublesMissy Brown / Leslie Webber vs Maria Bearden / Ann Swedenburg6-2, 6-0
L#3 DoublesLaura Jackson / Christy Dickerson vs Sara Brown / Angela White1-6, 6-7
2024-07-11vs 2024 Bearden TriLevel 3.0-4.0Split 11
L#1 DoublesCherie Ivey / Karen Crosby vs Mary Swedenburg / Karen Vickers4-6, 6-0, 0-1
W#2 DoublesCyndi Sullivan / Missy Brown vs Catherine van Asselt / Bette Rhea6-4, 6-3
2024-06-24vs 2024 Bearden TriLevel 3.0-4.0Won 21
W#1 DoublesCherie Ivey / Karen Crosby vs Kim Cadenhead / Jennifer Falkner7-6, 6-3
L#2 DoublesLeslie Webber / Missy Brown vs Maria Bearden / Catherine van Asselt6-4, 3-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesMona Howell / Laura Jackson vs Patricia Faver / Sara Brown7-6, 7-5
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 standings2 teams · Women 4.0, 3.5, 3.0
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
155+ Ivey Tri level-Columbus-MTC329616139
22024 Bearden TriLevel 3.0-4.0236920148

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 3.70 estimated across 1 rated player. 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.

3.70
Cherie Ivey
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
Christy Dickerson
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
Dawn Branton
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
Leslie Webber
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Missy Brown
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Mona Howell
usually #3 Doubles 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.

Missy Brown + Leslie Webber11558% games+3.3% vs expected
Dawn Branton + Christy Dickerson4450% games+1.9% vs expected
Mona Howell + Dawn Branton3344% games−11.2% 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.

4
Cherie Ivey
34W–30L career · 5 lines in 2024
6%93%1%
3.70
3
Christy Dickerson
15W–22L career · 2 lines in 2024
not enough data
3
Dawn Branton
20W–29L career · 2 lines in 2024
not enough data
Leslie Webber
23W–18L career · 3 lines in 2024
not enough data
Missy Brown
30W–19L career · 4 lines in 2024
not enough data
Mona Howell
11W–9L career · 2 lines in 2024
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.