Teams

MO/Kim/Tri-level3.5-4.5Women

2025 Springfield Adult 18 & Over 3.5-4.5 Tri-Level · 3.5, 4.0, 4.5 Women

10 players · average NTRP 4.00 / MISSOURI

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2025-10-07vs Leslie EcholsWon 30
W#1 DoublesAmy Mathew / Brittany Osborne vs MacY Mathew / Melissa Goodman7-6, 6-7, 1-0
W#2 DoublesHee-Sun Kim / Kelly Kramer vs Tami Murphy / Leslie Echols7-5, 6-2
W#3 DoublesStephanie Wachob / Laura Greene-Johnson vs Carol Rollins / Lori Hunt6-2, 6-0
2025-10-07vs Leslie EcholsWon 21
W#1 DoublesAmy Mathew / Brittany Osborne vs MacY Mathew / Melissa Goodman6-2, 0-6, 1-0
L#2 DoublesHee-Sun Kim / Christina Britt vs Leslie Echols / Carmen Broadbent6-7, 6-3, 0-1
W#3 DoublesStephanie Wachob / Laura Greene-Johnson vs Tami Murphy / Carol Rollins6-2, 6-2
2025-10-07vs Leslie EcholsLost 12
L#1 DoublesAmy Mathew / Brittany Osborne vs MacY Mathew / Melissa Goodman2-6, 6-0, 0-1
L#2 DoublesChristina Johnson / Kelly Kramer vs Leslie Echols / Carmen Broadbent2-6, 5-7
W#3 DoublesDebbie Pell / Kara Spiva vs Tami Murphy / Katherine Vandeven6-3, 6-7, 1-0
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 · 3.5, 4.0, 4.5 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1MO/Kim/Tri-level3.5-4.5Women2163975
2Leslie Echols12361498

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 3.46 estimated across 8 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.

3.74
Amy Mathew
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.69
Brittany Osborne
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
3.59
Hee-Sun Kim
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.42
Kelly Kramer
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.41
Laura Greene-Johnson
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.34
Christina Britt
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.32
Stephanie Wachob
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.21
Debbie Pell
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
Kara Spiva
usually #3 Doubles 100% · 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.

Kelly Kramer + Christina Johnson12065% games+5.8% vs expected
Brittany Osborne + Amy Mathew5842% games−1.4% vs expected
Hee-Sun Kim + Kara Spiva213 matchesnot enough data
Hee-Sun Kim + Debbie Pell303 matchesnot enough data
Stephanie Wachob + Laura Greene-Johnson213 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
Christina Johnson
15W–7L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
4
Amy Mathew
64W–100L career · 3 lines in 2025
5%92%3%
3.74
4.5
Brittany Osborne
96W–82L career · 3 lines in 2025
99%1%<1%
3.69
Hee-Sun Kim
78W–70L career · 2 lines in 2025
27%73%<1%
3.59
Kelly Kramer
44W–25L career · 2 lines in 2025
72%28%<1%
3.42
Laura Greene-Johnson
6W–16L career · 2 lines in 2025
73%27%<1%
3.41
4
Christina Britt
17W–22L career · 1 line in 2025
87%13%<1%
3.34
Stephanie Wachob
55W–57L career · 2 lines in 2025
1%89%10%
3.32
3.5
Debbie Pell
101W–79L career · 1 line in 2025
7%91%2%
3.21
Kara Spiva
30W–25L career · 1 line in 2025
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.