Teams

BP - Burks

2025 · 2026 SATA Tri Level 40 & Over (Women) - Fall

17 players · average NTRP 3.88 / GEORGIA

View scouting list →
Flight standings1 teams · 2026 SATA Tri Level 40 & Over (Women) - Fall
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1BP - Burks000000

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 3.67 estimated across 13 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.

3.96
Brienne Walsh
usually #1 Doubles 38%, also #2 Singles 38% · published 4
3.82
Adele Muller
usually #1 Doubles 80%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published 4
3.81
Michelle Monahan
usually #1 Doubles 47%, also #2 Doubles 41% · published
3.78
Bernadette Staudt
usually #1 Doubles 44%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.77
Emily Jowers
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
3.71
Katie Helmly
usually #3 Doubles 43%, also #1 Doubles 43% · published
3.70
Rachel Lovett
usually #2 Doubles 46%, also #1 Doubles 23% · published
3.70
Tracy Burks
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #3 Doubles 20% · published
3.57
Juliet Chisolm
usually #2 Doubles 38%, also #1 Doubles 31% · published
3.54
Tobia Makover
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
3.52
Jenny Mcnamara
usually #1 Doubles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.45
Patricia Vierheilig
usually #1 Doubles 69%, also #3 Doubles 15% · published
3.40
Catharine Thomas
usually #3 Doubles 63%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
Jeanne Arlow
published
Julia Wylly
published
Lisa Bailey
published
Sandra Patten
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.

Juliet Chisolm + Rachel Lovett4163% games+12.9% vs expected
Tobia Makover + Rachel Lovett7652% games+1.7% vs expected
Tobia Makover + Emily Jowers224 matchesnot enough data
Juliet Chisolm + Emily Jowers314 matchesnot enough data
Jenny Mcnamara + Rachel Lovett213 matchesnot enough data
Bernadette Staudt + Tracy Burks213 matchesnot enough data
Bernadette Staudt + Katie Helmly123 matchesnot enough data
Emily Jowers + Katie Helmly213 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.

4
Brienne Walsh
51W–14L career · 8 lines in 2026
<1%61%39%
3.96
4
Adele Muller
17W–5L career · 10 lines in 2026
1%89%10%
3.82
Michelle Monahan
89W–44L career · 17 lines in 2026
1%90%8%
3.81
4
Bernadette Staudt
19W–22L career · 9 lines in 2026
2%92%6%
3.78
Emily Jowers
32W–14L career · 20 lines in 2026
3%92%5%
3.77
Katie Helmly
22W–16L career · 7 lines in 2026
7%91%2%
3.71
Rachel Lovett
52W–27L career · 13 lines in 2026
0%<1%>99%
3.70
Tracy Burks
16W–6L career · 5 lines in 2026
7%91%2%
3.70
Juliet Chisolm
43W–16L career · 16 lines in 2026
<1%<1%>99%
3.57
Tobia Makover
31W–16L career · 6 lines in 2026
39%61%<1%
3.54
Jenny Mcnamara
33W–23L career · 11 lines in 2026
<1%<1%>99%
3.52
Patricia Vierheilig
19W–5L career · 13 lines in 2026
<1%64%36%
3.45
3.5
Catharine Thomas
13W–22L career · 8 lines in 2026
<1%76%24%
3.40
Jeanne Arlow
6W–2L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Julia Wylly
2W–0L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Lisa Bailey
7W–3L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Sandra Patten
14W–14L career · no lines in 2026
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.