Teams

GCC-Greene 18s 3.0W S

2025 Neuse River Singles 18 & over · 3.0 Women 18 & over

8 players · average NTRP 3.00 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2025-03-09vs GR-Dawson 18s 3.0W SWon 30
W#1 SinglesJuanita Yarrell vs Kristi Geer6-4, 7-5
W#2 SinglesMary-Marshall Greene vs Mary Hardison6-4, 6-4
W#3 SinglesCourtney Steed vs Taylor Snodgrass7-5, 7-6
2025-02-27vs GR-Dawson 18s 3.0W SWon 21
W#1 SinglesMartha Whitesides vs Taylor Snodgrass6-1, 6-3
L#2 SinglesJuanita Yarrell vs Jessica Beissner1-6, 7-6, 0-1
W#3 SinglesKeela Blango vs Megan Pender6-1, 6-3
2025-02-24vs GR-Dawson 18s 3.0W SLost 12
L#1 SinglesMartha Whitesides vs Mary Hardison5-7, 4-6
L#2 SinglesKeela Blango vs Lakisha Dawson2-6, 2-6
W#3 SinglesHanan Elgendy vs Crystal Dawson6-0, 6-1
2025-02-09vs GR-Dawson 18s 3.0W SWon 21
L#1 SinglesCarly Feingold vs Jessica Beissner3-6, 7-5, 1-0
W#2 SinglesMary-Marshall Greene vs Mary Hardison6-2, 6-2
W#3 SinglesKeela Blango vs Megan Pender7-6, 6-0
2025-02-02vs GR-Dawson 18s 3.0W SWon 21
W#1 SinglesMartha Whitesides vs Lakisha Dawson6-1, 6-0
L#2 SinglesCourtney Steed vs Kristi Geer3-6, 1-6
W#3 SinglesShimika Rasha vs Kelli Dawson7-5, 4-6, 1-0
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 3.0 Women 18 & over 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 2.78 estimated across 8 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.

2.98
Martha Whitesides
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
2.98
Carly Feingold
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 3
2.85
Juanita Yarrell
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 50% · published
2.79
Mary-Marshall Greene
usually #2 Singles 100% · published
2.73
Keela Blango
usually #3 Singles 67%, also #2 Singles 33% · published
2.72
Courtney Steed
usually #2 Singles 40%, also #1 Singles 40% · published 3
2.65
Shimika Rasha
usually #3 Singles 100% · published
2.53
Hanan Elgendy
usually #3 Singles 100% · 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.

Keela Blango + Shimika Rasha10364% games+7.5% vs expected
Juanita Yarrell + Mary-Marshall Greene303 matchesnot enough data
Mary-Marshall Greene + Martha Whitesides303 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.

Martha Whitesides
29W–10L career · 6 lines in 2025
<1%55%45%
2.98
3
Carly Feingold
3W–6L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%57%43%
2.98
Juanita Yarrell
23W–12L career · 2 lines in 2025
1%86%13%
2.85
Mary-Marshall Greene
39W–22L career · 2 lines in 2025
0%2%98%
2.79
Keela Blango
36W–15L career · 3 lines in 2025
0%5%95%
2.73
3
Courtney Steed
23W–10L career · 5 lines in 2025
6%92%2%
2.72
Shimika Rasha
26W–12L career · 3 lines in 2025
0%14%86%
2.65
Hanan Elgendy
7W–11L career · 1 line in 2025
43%57%<1%
2.53

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.