Teams

Freeland/Bright/Nashville

2025 Adult 55 & Over - Nashville · 3.0 Women - Saturday AM

12 players · average NTRP 3.00 / TENNESSEE

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2025-04-26vs Jamison/NashvilleWon 30
W#1 DoublesAngela Robbins / Trudy Sullivan vs Debbie Jacobs / Beverly Pearson2-6, 6-1, 1-0
W#2 DoublesJulie May / Wendy Baker vs Judy Philpot / Jan Rutherford6-3, 7-6
W#3 DoublesGlenda Anderson / Elaine Lee vs Debbie Williams / Susan Severn6-1, 6-3
2025-04-05vs Jamison/NashvilleWon 30
W#1 DoublesPeggy Rosenblatt / Nell Adams vs Kay Rose / Beverly Pearson6-1, 6-2
W#2 DoublesLaurie Farris / Elaine Lee vs Debbie Williams / Susan Severn6-1, 7-5
W#3 DoublesWendy Baker / Kim West vs Karen Leddy / Rhee Lotito6-0, 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 standings for 3.0 Women - Saturday AM 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 2.78 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.

2.95
Kim Bright
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
2.93
Nancy King
published
2.91
Nell Adams
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.85
Linda Ashford
published
2.79
Peggy Rosenblatt
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.77
Wendy Baker
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
2.76
Laurie Farris
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
2.73
Kim West
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
2.70
Angela Robbins
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.69
Glenda Anderson
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.65
Trudy Sullivan
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.62
Jennifer Freeland
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.

Trudy Sullivan + Glenda Anderson3256% games+3.0% vs expected
Peggy Rosenblatt + Nell Adams2350% gamesnot enough data
Angela Robbins + Wendy Baker224 matchesnot enough data
Nancy King + Nell Adams224 matchesnot enough data
Angela Robbins + Trudy Sullivan213 matchesnot enough data
Kim West + Kim Bright033 matchesnot enough data
Kim West + Wendy Baker213 matchesnot enough data
Laurie Farris + Kim Bright033 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.

Kim Bright
14W–25L career · 4 lines in 2025
<1%63%37%
2.95
Nancy King
14W–6L career · no lines in 2025
<1%69%31%
2.93
Nell Adams
11W–10L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%74%26%
2.91
Linda Ashford
3W–7L career · no lines in 2025
1%85%14%
2.85
Peggy Rosenblatt
3W–4L career · 1 line in 2025
2%92%6%
2.79
Wendy Baker
16W–14L career · 2 lines in 2025
3%92%5%
2.77
Laurie Farris
4W–11L career · 3 lines in 2025
3%92%4%
2.76
Kim West
6W–10L career · 3 lines in 2025
5%92%3%
2.73
3
Angela Robbins
6W–8L career · 1 line in 2025
8%91%2%
2.70
Glenda Anderson
11W–13L career · 1 line in 2025
9%90%1%
2.69
Trudy Sullivan
8W–10L career · 1 line in 2025
14%85%1%
2.65
Jennifer Freeland
8W–10L career · no lines in 2025
21%79%<1%
2.62

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.