Teams

Pa.Hankerson18S

2023 Cap 18 & Over Singles League · 3.5 Women

7 players · average NTRP 3.30 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule7 played
2023-07-16vs Sh.Littleton18SLost 03
L#1 SinglesPamela Hankerson vs Hilary Tew6-7, 1-6
L#2 SinglesJamiyla Bolton-Cubillan vs Katie Masood0-6, 0-6
L#3 SinglesQUEEN HARGROVE vs Traci Crabtree0-6, 4-6
2023-07-11vs La.Cox18SLost 01
L#2 SinglesJamiyla Bolton-Cubillan vs Kim Peters0-6, 1-6
2023-06-27vs Me.Bennett18SWon 20
W#2 SinglesRoberta Hadley vs Mallory Biringer6-3, 6-7, 1-0
W#3 SinglesQUEEN HARGROVE vs Jennifer Bissette6-4, 6-3
2023-06-13vs Ol.Stephens18SLost 01
L#1 SinglesRoberta Hadley vs Liz Chen5-7, 3-6
2023-06-06vs Sh.Leaver18SWon 20
W#2 SinglesDonna Misa vs Teresa Rullman6-7, 6-4, 1-0
W#3 SinglesQUEEN HARGROVE vs N/A6-0, 6-0
2023-05-30vs Ki.Durland/McIntyre18SLost 03
L#1 SinglesRoberta Hadley vs Ginny Meier5-7, 1-6
L#2 SinglesDonna Misa vs Joanna Brooks3-6, 1-6
L#3 SinglesJamiyla Bolton-Cubillan vs Jessica McIntyre2-6, 0-6
2023-05-23vs Ca.Robayo18S3.5Split 11
W#2 SinglesPamela Hankerson vs Gillian Kelleher4-6, 7-6, 1-0
L#3 SinglesQUEEN HARGROVE vs Lola Jefferies6-4, 0-6, 0-1
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 standings for 3.5 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 3.13 estimated across 7 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.

3.90
Paulina Powierza
published
3.39
Roberta Hadley
usually #1 Singles 67%, also #2 Singles 33% · published 3.5
3.09
Pamela Hankerson
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #1 Singles 50% · published 3.5
3.03
Michelle Mills
published
3.03
Donna Misa
usually #2 Singles 100% · published 3.5
2.83
Jamiyla Bolton-Cubillan
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #1 Singles 33% · published 3
2.66
QUEEN HARGROVE
usually #3 Singles 100% · published 3
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.

Roberta Hadley + Pamela Hankerson121647% games+9.6% vs expected
QUEEN HARGROVE + Jamiyla Bolton-Cubillan0830% games−7.1% vs expected
QUEEN HARGROVE + Pamela Hankerson31338% gamesnot enough data
Pamela Hankerson + Jamiyla Bolton-Cubillan213 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.

Paulina Powierza
12W–4L career · no lines in 2023
<1%76%24%
3.90
3.5
Roberta Hadley
245W–120L career · 3 lines in 2023
<1%79%21%
3.39
3.5
Pamela Hankerson
96W–202L career · type A · 2 lines in 2023
27%73%<1%
3.09
Michelle Mills
16W–12L career · no lines in 2023
<1%41%59%
3.03
3.5
Donna Misa
47W–73L career · 2 lines in 2023
43%57%<1%
3.03
3
Jamiyla Bolton-Cubillan
124W–174L career · 6 lines in 2023
1%87%12%
2.83
3
QUEEN HARGROVE
107W–205L career · 4 lines in 2023
13%86%1%
2.66

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.