Teams

An.Garey40S

2026 Capital Singles 40 & Over · 3.0 Women

8 players · average NTRP 2.92 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule8 played
2026-08-02vs La.McRee40SLost 12
L#1 SinglesKathryn Shields vs Rossi Evans0-3
L#2 SinglesJulie Bullock vs Miriam Waters4-6, 5-7
W#3 SinglesAllison Bubar vs Stephanie Fogarty6-4, 6-2
2026-08-01vs El.Nixon40SSplit 11
W#1 SinglesMeghan Richardson vs Casey Novak6-2, 6-1
L#2 SinglesJulie Bullock vs Josette Huntress2-6, 0-6
2026-07-11vs He.McCann40SWon 30
W#1 SinglesMeghan Richardson vs Alise Fredrickson6-4, 6-1
W#2 SinglesAnn Garey vs Kate Peckham6-3, 6-0
W#3 SinglesDana Aderhold vs Heidi McCann7-5, 6-2
2026-07-08vs Je.Wolborsky40SSplit 11
L#1 SinglesDana Aderhold vs Lora Barnett6-7, 0-6
W#2 SinglesAnn Garey vs Jill Dykes6-2, 6-3
2026-06-27vs El.Nixon40SSplit 11
L#1 SinglesAllison Bubar vs Casey Novak2-6, 5-7
W#2 SinglesAnn Garey vs Elisabeth Nixon6-0, 4-1
2026-06-20vs La.McRee40SSplit 11
L#1 SinglesJulie Bullock vs Miriam Waters3-6, 3-6
W#2 SinglesDana Aderhold vs Kristen Duke6-1, 6-1
2026-06-06vs He.McCann40SSplit 11
L#1 SinglesInma Navarro Galisteo vs Amy Cuni6-7, 5-7
W#2 SinglesKathryn Shields vs Jeannette Walker7-5, 6-2
2026-05-30vs Je.Wolborsky40SWon 30
W#1 SinglesMeghan Richardson vs Jeanne Russell6-4, 7-5
W#2 SinglesInma Navarro Galisteo vs Jennifer Wolborsky4-6, 6-4, 1-0
W#3 SinglesKathryn Shields vs Shannon Clarkson7-6, 7-6
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 standings2 teams · 3.0 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1An.Garey40S5315920199
2Je.Wolborsky40S44111328224

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 2.79 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.

3.05
Meghan Richardson
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 3
2.94
Inma Navarro Galisteo
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 50% · published 3
2.84
Dana Aderhold
usually #2 Singles 33%, also #3 Singles 33% · published 3
2.77
Ann Garey
usually #2 Singles 100% · published 3
2.77
Kathryn Shields
usually #3 Singles 33%, also #2 Singles 33% · published 3
2.63
Julie Bullock
usually #2 Singles 67%, also #1 Singles 33% · published
2.56
Allison Bubar
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #3 Singles 50% · published 2.5
Rebecca Harris
published
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.

3
Meghan Richardson
41W–31L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%34%66%
3.05
3
Inma Navarro Galisteo
17W–7L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%69%31%
2.94
3
Dana Aderhold
7W–4L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%88%11%
2.84
3
Ann Garey
94W–72L career · 3 lines in 2026
2%94%4%
2.77
3
Kathryn Shields
88W–91L career · 3 lines in 2026
2%94%4%
2.77
Julie Bullock
2W–9L career · 3 lines in 2026
15%84%<1%
2.63
2.5
Allison Bubar
10W–7L career · 2 lines in 2026
0%31%69%
2.56
Rebecca Harris
0W–1L 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.