Teams

Miller-GGCC

2025 Adult 40 & Over-DLT · Women 3.0

10 players · average NTRP 2.88 / MISSISSIPPI

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2025-04-30vs Dodd - ICCLost 12
L#1 DoublesPam Miller / Ashley Grubb vs Corri Zepponi / Margaret Jones6-0, 2-6, 0-1
W#2 DoublesDonna Adams / Nadine Hayek vs Elizabeth Veazey / Paige Daniels6-0, 2-6, 1-0
L#3 DoublesMcCall Ainsworth / Mary Hobart vs Vickie L Dodd / Delma Brown3-6, 1-6
2025-04-16vs Dodd - ICCLost 03
L#1 DoublesMary Hobart / Tina Murphy vs Cassey Hardin / Margaret Jones4-6, 4-6
L#2 DoublesAshley Grubb / Pamela Eifling vs Delma Brown / Amanda Snell1-6, 4-6
L#3 DoublesNadine Hayek / Elizabeth Hanos vs Lori Chism / Corri Zepponi0-6, 4-6
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 Women 3.0 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 2.56 estimated across 7 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.

2.71
McCall Ainsworth
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.68
Ashley Grubb
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 3
2.59
Donna Adams
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.56
Pamela Eifling
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.52
Mary Hobart
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
2.47
Nadine Hayek
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
2.36
Christal Turner
published 3
Elizabeth Hanos
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
Leslie Hassett
published
Michelle Gist
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.

Mary Hobart + Donna Adams2545% games−4.9% vs expected
Pamela Eifling + McCall Ainsworth1633% games−16.2% vs expected
McCall Ainsworth + Donna Adams314 matchesnot enough data
Nadine Hayek + Michelle Gist044 matchesnot enough data
Leslie Hassett + Mary Hobart033 matchesnot enough data
Leslie Hassett + Michelle Gist123 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.

McCall Ainsworth
32W–45L career · 1 line in 2025
5%94%1%
2.71
3
Ashley Grubb
7W–7L career · 2 lines in 2025
8%91%1%
2.68
3
Donna Adams
12W–13L career · 1 line in 2025
24%75%<1%
2.59
Pamela Eifling
11W–13L career · 1 line in 2025
32%67%<1%
2.56
Mary Hobart
5W–18L career · 2 lines in 2025
44%56%<1%
2.52
Nadine Hayek
5W–16L career · 2 lines in 2025
59%41%<1%
2.47
3
Christal Turner
4W–15L career · no lines in 2025
86%14%<1%
2.36
2.5
Elizabeth Hanos
1W–8L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Leslie Hassett
10W–13L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Michelle Gist
1W–12L career · no 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.