Teams

2.5 Northwood

2024 Pine Belt Singles League · 2.5 Women

7 players · average NTRP 2.75 / MISSISSIPPI

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2024-12-21vs Fins 25 SinglesLost 12
L#1 SinglesJenni Barr vs McKenzie Woodard4-6, 1-6
L#2 SinglesJenn Northam vs Kennedi Fantroy3-6, 3-6
W#3 SinglesNancy Walton vs Mary Kathryn Burge6-2, 6-3
2024-12-07vs Langford HCCSplit 11
W#1 SinglesJenni Barr vs Lauren McWilliams6-2, 6-2
L#2 SinglesAmanda Snowden vs Chelle Langford1-6, 4-6
2024-12-02vs Hanson HCCSplit 11
W#1 SinglesApril Cardwell vs Candace Baye7-6, 1-6, 1-0
L#3 SinglesNancy Walton vs Amanda Hanson0-6, 1-6
2024-11-18vs Langford HCCSplit 11
W#1 SinglesJenni Barr vs Chelle Langford2-6, 7-5, 1-0
L#2 SinglesMary Lauren Deweese vs Lauren McWilliams3-6, 0-6
2024-11-03vs Fins 25 SinglesLost 12
L#1 SinglesMary Lauren Deweese vs Kennedi Fantroy1-6, 2-6
L#2 SinglesAmanda Snowden vs McKenzie Woodard3-6, 3-6
W#3 SinglesJuliet Mcdonald vs Ashley Vance6-1, 6-3
2024-10-23vs Hanson HCCLost 12
L#1 SinglesJenn Northam vs Candace Baye0-6, 0-6
W#2 SinglesAmanda Snowden vs Mary Hays6-1, 6-0
L#3 SinglesNancy Walton vs Lindsay Glover3-6, 2-6
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 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 2.40 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.

2.65
Jenni Barr
usually #1 Singles 80%, also #2 Singles 20% · published
2.54
Jenn Northam
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #1 Singles 50% · published
2.47
April Cardwell
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 3
2.38
Juliet Mcdonald
usually #3 Singles 100% · published
2.20
Amanda Snowden
usually #2 Singles 100% · published 2.5
2.17
Nancy Walton
usually #3 Singles 100% · published
Mary Lauren Deweese
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 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.

April Cardwell + Jenn Northam3745% games+13.7% vs expected
Jenni Barr + Nancy Walton213 matchesnot enough data
April Cardwell + Juliet Mcdonald033 matchesnot enough data
Jenn Northam + Amanda Snowden213 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.

Jenni Barr
15W–24L career · 5 lines in 2024
14%85%1%
2.65
Jenn Northam
14W–27L career · 2 lines in 2024
38%62%<1%
2.54
3
April Cardwell
12W–22L career · 1 line in 2024
57%43%<1%
2.47
Juliet Mcdonald
11W–16L career · 1 line in 2024
0%79%21%
2.38
2.5
Amanda Snowden
7W–23L career · 3 lines in 2024
0%98%2%
2.20
Nancy Walton
7W–18L career · 3 lines in 2024
0%99%1%
2.17
Mary Lauren Deweese
6W–7L career · 2 lines in 2024
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.