Teams

Tindall-CCC

2024 Adult 18 & Over-DLT · Women 4.0

14 players · average NTRP 3.83 / MISSISSIPPI

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2024-05-16vs Simmons-ICCSplit 22
L#1 DoublesMegan Belenchia / Stephanie Farris vs Mary Neal / Lane Lyon5-7, 1-6
W#1 SinglesLisa Cooley vs Lisa Weathers6-4, 6-3
L#2 DoublesBlair Campbell Taylor / Beth Joel vs Allison Mullen / Melody Taylor6-4, 3-6, 0-1
W#3 DoublesGeorgia Wilson Tindall / Kathryn Boykin vs Leah Barner / Jane Pillow Long6-4, 6-0
2024-05-06vs Simmons-ICCWon 21
W#1 DoublesAllyson Lofton / Mary Jeffreys vs Brenda Lott / Paula Simmons6-1, 6-1
W#1 SinglesGeorgia Wilson Tindall vs Lisa Weathers6-2, 6-2
L#2 DoublesBeth Joel / Lisa Cooley vs Mary Neal / Robin Toler4-6, 7-5, 0-1
2024-04-22vs Simmons-ICCLost 23
W#1 DoublesAvery Johnson / Lisa Cooley vs Brenda Lott / Lane Lyon6-4, 6-4
L#1 SinglesStephanie Farris vs Alyssn Lott1-6, 0-6
W#2 DoublesHaley Huerta Kelly / Mary Jeffreys vs Mary Cadenhead Glasco / Allison Mullen0-6, 6-4, 1-0
L#2 SinglesTracy Craddock vs Lisa Weathers3-6, 0-6
L#3 DoublesGeorgia Wilson Tindall / Beth Joel vs Mary Neal / Leah Barner6-3, 2-6, 1-0
2024-04-15vs Simmons-ICCLost 23
W#1 DoublesAllyson Lofton / Avery Johnson vs Brenda Lott / Robin Toler7-5, 6-3
L#1 SinglesTracy Craddock vs Lisa Weathers2-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesSusan Morgan / Lisa Cooley vs Sara Hester / Mary Neal6-3, 6-7, 0-1
W#2 SinglesGeorgia Wilson Tindall vs Alyssn Lott6-2, 6-2
L#3 DoublesHaley Huerta Kelly / Mary Jeffreys vs Leah Barner / Jane Pillow Long6-7, 3-6
2024-03-18vs Simmons-ICCLost 23
L#1 DoublesSusan Morgan / Lisa Cooley vs Lane Lyon / Mary Neal6-3, 6-7, 0-1
L#1 SinglesGeorgia Wilson Tindall vs Alyssn Lott4-6, 5-7
W#2 DoublesAllyson Lofton / Mary Jeffreys vs Allison Mullen / Melody Taylor6-1, 6-2
L#2 SinglesTracy Craddock vs Sara Hester0-6, 1-6
W#3 DoublesTori Gaines / Avery Johnson vs Mary Cadenhead Glasco / Jane Pillow Long6-4, 6-1
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 · Women 4.0
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Simmons-ICC32121331239
2Tindall-CCC23131225196

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 3.35 estimated across 12 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.

Allyson Lofton
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4
Haley Huerta Kelly
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.67
Lisa Cooley
usually #1 Doubles 40%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published
3.64
Georgia Wilson Tindall
usually #3 Doubles 40%, also #1 Singles 40% · published 4
3.60
Susan Morgan
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
3.49
Tori Gaines
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.41
Avery Johnson
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.38
Blair Campbell Taylor
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.28
Mary Jeffreys
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published
3.25
Stephanie Farris
usually #1 Singles 25%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
3.22
Beth Joel
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.19
Kathryn Boykin
usually #2 Doubles 33%, also #1 Singles 33% · published
3.19
Megan Belenchia
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Singles 33% · published
2.92
Tracy Craddock
usually #2 Singles 67%, also #1 Singles 33% · 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.

Kathryn Boykin + Blair Campbell Taylor7264% games+6.8% vs expected
Susan Morgan + Lisa Cooley10560% games+4.2% vs expected
Tori Gaines + Allyson Lofton6067% games+3.0% vs expected
Blair Campbell Taylor + Beth Joel4263% games+1.1% vs expected
Stephanie Farris + Beth Joel3355% games+0.8% vs expected
Megan Belenchia + Stephanie Farris3349% games−2.9% vs expected
Mary Jeffreys + Beth Joel5062% games−6.0% vs expected
Avery Johnson + Tracy Craddock0834% games−6.2% vs expected
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.

4
Allyson Lofton
29W–3L career · 3 lines in 2024
not enough data
4
Haley Huerta Kelly
5W–8L career · 2 lines in 2024
not enough data
Lisa Cooley
24W–11L career · 5 lines in 2024
10%90%1%
3.67
4
Georgia Wilson Tindall
14W–15L career · 5 lines in 2024
14%85%<1%
3.64
Susan Morgan
23W–22L career · 2 lines in 2024
21%79%<1%
3.60
Tori Gaines
23W–6L career · 1 line in 2024
<1%<1%>99%
3.49
4
Avery Johnson
9W–17L career · 3 lines in 2024
76%24%<1%
3.41
3.5
Blair Campbell Taylor
34W–19L career · 3 lines in 2024
<1%81%18%
3.38
Mary Jeffreys
23W–4L career · 4 lines in 2024
<1%2%98%
3.28
Stephanie Farris
35W–33L career · 4 lines in 2024
3%95%2%
3.25
3.5
Beth Joel
42W–36L career · 3 lines in 2024
5%94%2%
3.22
Kathryn Boykin
28W–23L career · 3 lines in 2024
7%92%1%
3.19
Megan Belenchia
23W–30L career · 3 lines in 2024
7%92%1%
3.19
Tracy Craddock
16W–69L career · 3 lines in 2024
73%27%<1%
2.92

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.