Teams

BH - HONEYCUTT

2024 B'ham Tri-Level Weekday - 18 & Over Women · 4.5,4.0,3.5 Women Wednesday

11 players · average NTRP 3.83 / ALABAMA

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2024-06-26vs Highland Park - SheaLost 01
L#2 DoublesTracey Dalzell Walsh / Angie Blaising vs Maggie Misner / Kat Rogers1-6, 4-6
2024-06-19vs Lifetime - Harbuck/WaldronWon 10
W#2 DoublesTracey Dalzell Walsh / Angie Blaising vs Meredith Vinson / Kirstie Ivey5-7, 6-1, 1-0
2024-06-12vs Vestavia Country Club - CaudellWon 10
W#2 DoublesAngie Blaising / Debbie Drake vs Ashley Hood / Sarah Pipkin6-4, 6-0
2024-06-05vs Hoover Met - DuckWon 10
W#2 DoublesTracey Dalzell Walsh / Angie Blaising vs Alejandrina Herrera Fey / Tina Mills7-5, 6-2
2024-05-29vs BHRC - McIntoshWon 10
W#2 DoublesTracey Dalzell Walsh / Angie Blaising vs Garner Thompson / Gina McIntosh6-3, 6-2
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 4.5,4.0,3.5 Women Wednesday 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 3.68 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.

4.24
Tami Hansen
published
3.92
3.92
Angie Blaising
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.84
Kim Nolen
published
3.81
Kathy Honeycutt
published
3.77
Debbie Drake
published 4
3.75
Sherry Clark
published
3.41
Marcy Jolly
published
3.34
Selina Maddox
published
3.25
Cari Hollingsworth
published 3.5
3.24
Tammy Woodham
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.

Tracey Dalzell Walsh + Sherry Clark4257% games+2.1% vs expected
Marcy Jolly + Selina Maddox241855% games+1.7% vs expected
Tracey Dalzell Walsh + Angie Blaising4259% games−1.4% vs expected
Tami Hansen + Kathy Honeycutt213 matchesnot enough data
Tami Hansen + Sherry Clark213 matchesnot enough data
Kathy Honeycutt + Angie Blaising213 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.

Tami Hansen
22W–5L career · no lines in 2024
4%93%3%
4.24
Tracey Dalzell Walsh
32W–18L career · no lines in 2024
<1%71%29%
3.92
4
Angie Blaising
83W–56L career · 5 lines in 2024
<1%72%27%
3.92
Kim Nolen
10W–9L career · no lines in 2024
87%13%<1%
3.84
Kathy Honeycutt
16W–35L career · no lines in 2024
91%9%<1%
3.81
4
Debbie Drake
23W–18L career · no lines in 2024
3%92%5%
3.77
Sherry Clark
47W–26L career · no lines in 2024
4%93%3%
3.75
Marcy Jolly
51W–30L career · no lines in 2024
<1%74%26%
3.41
Selina Maddox
40W–35L career · no lines in 2024
1%87%12%
3.34
3.5
Cari Hollingsworth
18W–11L career · no lines in 2024
4%93%4%
3.25
Tammy Woodham
14W–16L career · no lines in 2024
4%93%3%
3.24

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.