Teams

Johnson-NC-3.0 Mixed

2025 Mixed 40&Over-NC · 3.0 Mixed

10 players · average NTRP / MISSISSIPPI

No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
L#1 DoublesPam Johnson / Matthew Sparks vs Lacey Dunlap / William Kitchens5-7, 1-6
W#2 DoublesWENDY Vines / Rollin Riggs vs Brandi Tomlinson / Bill Clark6-1, 6-4
W#3 DoublesTabitha Arrington / Narendra Ravinootala vs Jamie Frank / Heath Fullilove3-6, 7-5, 1-0
L#1 DoublesMatthew Sparks / Tabitha Arrington vs Kathlene Poulelis / William Kitchens2-6, 4-6
W#2 DoublesWENDY Vines / Rollin Riggs vs Jamie Frank / Jeff Summers6-1, 6-4
L#3 DoublesTammy Downs / Narendra Ravinootala vs Lacey Dunlap / Peter Poulelis6-7, 5-7
L#1 DoublesMelanie Sparks / Matthew Sparks vs Kathlene Poulelis / Heath Fullilove2-6, 5-7
W#2 DoublesWENDY Vines / Rollin Riggs vs Jamie Frank / Jeff Summers6-4, 6-4
W#3 DoublesRenie Bumpous / Edgar Contreras vs Brandi Tomlinson / William Kitchens6-2, 2-6, 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 Mixed 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 2.65 estimated across 10 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.

2.83
Narendra Ravinootala
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.83
Rollin Riggs
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.78
Edgar Contreras
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.77
Melanie Sparks
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.73
Renie Bumpous
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.61
Matthew Sparks
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.56
Tabitha Arrington
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
2.56
Pam Johnson
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.45
Tammy Downs
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
2.42
WENDY Vines
usually #2 Doubles 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.

WENDY Vines + Rollin Riggs5256% games+16.7% vs expected
Matthew Sparks + WENDY Vines033 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.

Narendra Ravinootala
25W–15L career · 2 lines in 2025
1%88%11%
2.83
Rollin Riggs
15W–17L career · 3 lines in 2025
1%88%11%
2.83
Edgar Contreras
21W–14L career · 1 line in 2025
2%92%6%
2.78
Melanie Sparks
11W–30L career · 1 line in 2025
95%5%<1%
2.77
Renie Bumpous
15W–22L career · 1 line in 2025
5%92%3%
2.73
Matthew Sparks
6W–17L career · 3 lines in 2025
22%78%<1%
2.61
Tabitha Arrington
19W–19L career · 2 lines in 2025
0%33%67%
2.56
Pam Johnson
34W–39L career · 1 line in 2025
0%34%66%
2.56
Tammy Downs
27W–50L career · 4 lines in 2025
0%64%36%
2.45
WENDY Vines
29W–44L career · 3 lines in 2025
0%72%28%
2.42

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.