Teams

Tarver - Camp Creek

2026 OWB Mixed 18 & Over · 7.0 Mixed 18 & Over

13 players · average NTRP 3.36 / REGION_1

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 →
Schedule2 played
2026-08-20vs Bachman - Rosemary BeachLost 02
L#2 DoublesJohn Rhodes / Pamm Chapman vs Joel Huddleston / Chelsea Petrey1-6, 2-6
L#3 DoublesRay Schneider / Tanya Rhodes vs Garrett Whittle / Meg Castleberry3-6, 1-6
2026-08-07vs Bachman - Rosemary BeachLost 12
W#1 DoublesGordon Tarver / Brittany Tarver vs Joel Huddleston / Tina Rickards-Fuller5-7, 6-3, 1-0
L#2 DoublesBrock Halstead / Tanya Rhodes vs Brandon Bachman / Chelsea Petrey6-7, 3-6
L#3 DoublesDebbie Debartola / William Marshall vs Shaun Streeter / Kimberly Colley0-6, 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 7.0 Mixed 18 & Over 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 3.17 estimated across 9 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.

3.84
Bart Salim
published 4
Gordon Tarver
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.68
Tanya Rhodes
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
3.29
Debbie Debartola
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.24
Pamm Chapman
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.04
Brittany Tarver
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
3.03
Mary Brandman
published
2.89
Jacqueline Ward
published 3
2.76
Brock Halstead
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #3 Doubles 40% · published 3
2.73
Andy Hernandez
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
John Rhodes
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Ray Schneider
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
William Marshall
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
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
Bart Salim
10W–8L career · no lines in 2026
<1%89%11%
3.84
4
Gordon Tarver
1W–0L career · type S · 1 line in 2026
not enough data
Tanya Rhodes
140W–109L career · 2 lines in 2026
9%91%1%
3.68
3.5
Debbie Debartola
3W–1L career · type S · 1 line in 2026
1%94%5%
3.29
Pamm Chapman
2W–7L career · 1 line in 2026
3%94%2%
3.24
3
Brittany Tarver
31W–12L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%38%62%
3.04
Mary Brandman
7W–4L career · no lines in 2026
<1%41%59%
3.03
3
Jacqueline Ward
24W–8L career · no lines in 2026
<1%80%19%
2.89
3
Brock Halstead
7W–8L career · 5 lines in 2026
2%95%3%
2.76
3
Andy Hernandez
5W–4L career · 1 line in 2026
4%94%2%
2.73
John Rhodes
22W–49L career · 1 line in 2026
not enough data
Ray Schneider
0W–1L career · 1 line in 2026
not enough data
William Marshall
2W–2L career · 1 line in 2026
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.