Teams

Ford - Battlefield Ball Busters

2025 Fredericksburg Tri-Level · Fredericksburg Tri-Level 4.0, 3.5, 3.0 Women

13 players · average NTRP 3.42 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule8 played
2025-09-28vs Tri CaliriLost 01
L#2 DoublesKathryn Davis / Debbie Kem vs Marla Aste / Emily Sereno3-6, 0-6
2025-09-21vs Tri CaliriLost 01
L#2 DoublesTricia Hulsey / Susan Button vs Lorrie Roberts / Emily Sereno0-6, 2-6
2025-09-14vs Tri CaliriWon 10
W#3 DoublesSue Nilsson / Susan Hanback vs Nicole Fassnacht / Mary Blake6-3, 6-2
2025-08-24vs Tri CaliriLost 01
L#3 DoublesSue Nilsson / Nancy Gatti vs Mary Blake / Megan Roberge5-7, 3-6
2025-08-17vs Tri CaliriWon 10
W#2 DoublesDebbie Kem / Jacalyn Bennett vs Leslie Caliri / Julie Root6-3, 6-1
2025-08-12vs Tri CaliriLost 01
L#3 DoublesSue Nilsson / Nancy Gatti vs Nicole Fassnacht / Amanda Jamero3-6, 5-7
2025-08-03vs Tri CaliriLost 01
L#3 DoublesTara Ford / Sue Nilsson vs Kylee Shoop / Mary Blake4-6, 6-7
2025-07-29vs Tri CaliriLost 01
L#2 DoublesDebbie Kem / Sue Nilsson vs Leslie Caliri / Lorrie Roberts1-6, 1-6
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 Fredericksburg Tri-Level 4.0, 3.5, 3.0 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 3.03 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.

3.63
Lorraine K McBride
published
Abigail Davenport
published 3.5
3.16
Tricia Hulsey
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.12
Debbie Kem
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.12
Jacalyn Bennett
published 3.5
3.09
Lisa Palmer
published
2.96
Carolyn Beckham
published 3.5
2.85
Susan Button
published
2.81
Tara Ford
published
2.81
Sue Nilsson
usually #3 Doubles 80%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published 3
2.76
Nancy Gatti
published
June Brick
published
Kathryn Davis
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.

Jacalyn Bennett + Debbie Kem123 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.

Lorraine K McBride
5W–8L career · no lines in 2025
16%84%<1%
3.63
3.5
Abigail Davenport
1W–4L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
3.5
Tricia Hulsey
16W–19L career · 1 line in 2025
11%89%<1%
3.16
3.5
Debbie Kem
233W–165L career · 3 lines in 2025
17%83%<1%
3.12
3.5
Jacalyn Bennett
4W–9L career · no lines in 2025
18%82%<1%
3.12
Lisa Palmer
3W–4L career · no lines in 2025
24%76%<1%
3.09
3.5
Carolyn Beckham
0W–4L career · no lines in 2025
61%39%<1%
2.96
Susan Button
12W–14L career · no lines in 2025
<1%88%12%
2.85
Tara Ford
20W–21L career · no lines in 2025
1%92%7%
2.81
3
Sue Nilsson
85W–147L career · 5 lines in 2025
1%92%7%
2.81
Nancy Gatti
4W–5L career · no lines in 2025
2%95%3%
2.76
June Brick
2W–2L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Kathryn Davis
1W–1L 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.