Teams

Mullens/VB/CM

2026 Adult 18 & Over Spring 1 League · 2.5 Women

7 players · average NTRP 2.50 / ARKANSAS

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2026-04-23vs Marcotte/FS/HOLost 12
L#1 DoublesMonique Bracken / Sharon Guzman vs Emily Humphrey / Marcela Escobar2-6, 0-6
W#1 SinglesMadelyn Sturgill vs Shirley Vega6-2, 7-5
L#2 DoublesBlanca Barroso / Wendy Mullens vs Katie Gibbs / Jacie Hamby5-7, 4-6
2026-04-09vs Marcotte/FS/HOLost 12
L#1 DoublesWendy Mullens / Emma Robertson vs Emily Humphrey / Whitney Marcotte1-6, 2-6
L#1 SinglesMadelyn Sturgill vs Jacie Hamby2-6, 2-6
W#2 DoublesBlanca Barroso / Madeline Jamison vs Erin Barker / Kristey Taake6-4, 7-5
2026-04-01vs Knoll/FS/CMWon 30
W#1 DoublesSharon Guzman / Madeline Jamison vs Emily Knoll / Gaby Craig6-1, 6-1
W#1 SinglesMonique Bracken vs Michelle Greenfield6-1, 7-5
W#2 DoublesBlanca Barroso / Madelyn Sturgill vs Mitzi Efurd / Dariela Guevara6-0, 6-0
2026-03-04vs Knoll/FS/CMWon 30
W#1 DoublesWendy Mullens / Madelyn Sturgill vs Mitzi Efurd / Michelle Greenfield6-4, 6-0
W#1 SinglesBlanca Barroso vs Gaby Craig6-0, 6-0
W#2 DoublesEmma Robertson / Monique Bracken vs Taylor Oneal / Camille Friday6-4, 6-3
2026-02-25vs Marcotte/FS/HOLost 12
L#1 DoublesBlanca Barroso / Sharon Guzman vs Jacie Hamby / Katie Gibbs2-6, 3-6
L#1 SinglesMadelyn Sturgill vs Emily Humphrey0-6, 0-6
W#2 DoublesEmma Robertson / Wendy Mullens vs Erin Barker / Stacy Seeger6-2, 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 2.5 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 2.22 estimated across 6 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.

2.42
Blanca Barroso
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #1 Doubles 20% · published 2.5
2.35
Madelyn Sturgill
usually #1 Singles 60%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published
Angel Geels
published 2.5
2.23
Wendy Mullens
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
2.17
Sharon Guzman
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.12
Monique Bracken
usually #1 Doubles 33%, also #1 Singles 33% · published
2.06
Madeline Jamison
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · 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.

Blanca Barroso + Wendy Mullens044 matchesnot enough data
Sharon Guzman + Wendy Mullens213 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.

2.5
Blanca Barroso
9W–14L career · 5 lines in 2026
0%72%28%
2.42
Madelyn Sturgill
12W–6L career · 5 lines in 2026
0%86%14%
2.35
2.5
Angel Geels
1W–1L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Wendy Mullens
15W–21L career · 4 lines in 2026
0%97%3%
2.23
Sharon Guzman
10W–12L career · 3 lines in 2026
0%99%1%
2.17
Monique Bracken
3W–4L career · 3 lines in 2026
0%>99%<1%
2.12
Madeline Jamison
5W–4L career · 2 lines in 2026
0%>99%<1%
2.06

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.