Teams

GR - We're just here for a good time...

2026 Tri Level 18 and Above · Womens 3.0

7 players · average NTRP 3.50 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2026-03-01vs GCC-Pons/Smith (18s 3.0/3.5/4.0)Lost 12
L#1 DoublesLauren Turbeville / Samantha Taylor Haislip vs Cassidy Johnson / Kerry Smith2-6, 6-3, 0-1
W#2 DoublesMegan Parker / Ashley Elise vs Beth Hopkins / Monica Carlson6-0, 6-4
L#3 DoublesLauren Horton / Mary Hardison vs Nicole Carlyle / Mary-Marshall Greene3-6, 5-7
2026-03-01vs GCC-Pons/Smith (18s 3.0/3.5/4.0)Split 11
L#2 DoublesAbbey Strickland / Ashley Elise vs Kerry Smith / Cassidy Johnson1-6, 3-6
W#3 DoublesAbbey Dail / Mary Hardison vs Nicole Carlyle / Mary-Marshall Greene3-6, 6-3, 1-0
2026-02-28vs GCC-Pons/Smith (18s 3.0/3.5/4.0)Won 20
W#1 DoublesJill Davis / Brooke Brann vs Jamie Harford / Cassidy Johnson7-5, 1-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesLauren Horton / Abbey Dail vs Jennifer Hall / Mary-Marshall Greene6-1, 7-6
2026-02-28vs GCC-Pons/Smith (18s 3.0/3.5/4.0)Lost 03
L#1 DoublesBrooke Brann / Lauren Turbeville vs Eleanor Kipp / Cassidy Johnson2-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesMegan Parker / Ashley Elise vs Monica Carlson / Beth Hopkins7-6, 3-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesAbbey Dail / Mary Hardison vs Jennifer Hall / Margaret Turner1-6, 5-7
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 Womens 3.0 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 3.15 estimated across 6 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.

3.68
Brooke Brann
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.42
Samantha Taylor Haislip
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.16
Lauren Turbeville
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.04
Ashley Elise
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
2.80
Abbey Dail
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.79
Mary Hardison
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Megan Parker
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.

Lauren Turbeville + Ashley Elise303 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.

4
Brooke Brann
12W–7L career · 2 lines in 2026
10%89%1%
3.68
Samantha Taylor Haislip
10W–6L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%<1%>99%
3.42
Lauren Turbeville
8W–10L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%13%87%
3.16
3.5
Ashley Elise
20W–19L career · 3 lines in 2026
38%62%<1%
3.04
3
Abbey Dail
3W–3L career · type S · 3 lines in 2026
2%91%7%
2.80
Mary Hardison
15W–15L career · 3 lines in 2026
2%91%7%
2.79
Megan Parker
2W–1L career · no lines 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.