Teams

EJohnston (Park Road)

2025 Tri-Level 18 & Over League · 18 & Over 3.5

15 players · average NTRP 4.00 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2025-07-17vs JBlack (Matthews)Lost 12
W#1 DoublesClaudia Bareis / Caroline Boger vs Madison Lohnes / Diane Bach6-1, 6-7, 1-0
L#2 DoublesColleen Hickman / Marta Tataje vs Julian Black / Allison Turner6-2, 1-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesSharon Wooten / Eugenia Grow vs Donna Musante / Peggy Reimann6-3, 3-6, 0-1
2025-07-10vs ATaylor (Park Road)Lost 12
L#1 DoublesMegan Griffin / Caroline Boger vs Cassandra Wincek / Eryn Ratcliffe0-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesSheryl Beaver / Jenni Beasley vs Caroline Pickup / Avra Reddy4-6, 6-2, 0-1
W#3 DoublesSharon Wooten / Eugenia Grow vs Ashleigh Byrd / Elisa Salim7-5, 7-6
2025-06-26vs JBlack (Matthews)Won 30
W#1 DoublesClaudia Bareis / Caroline Boger vs Anna Sharp / Ana Bolson6-3, 6-4
W#2 DoublesJenni Beasley / Colleen Hickman vs Tracy Stamey / Julian Black6-0, 7-5
W#3 DoublesEugenia Grow / Lynn Selland vs Nikki Haskins / Peggy Reimann6-3, 6-2
2025-06-19vs ATaylor (Park Road)Lost 03
L#1 DoublesKim Cochran / Megan Griffin vs Cassandra Wincek / Austin Taylor2-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesMonica Erb / Marta Tataje vs Sophie Pollak / Avra Reddy5-7, 6-2, 0-1
L#3 DoublesTara Croom / Lynn Selland vs Madeline Jurch / Elisa Salim1-6, 2-6
2025-06-11vs ATaylor (Park Road)Won 21
W#1 DoublesCaroline Boger / Kim Cochran vs Eryn Ratcliffe / Austin Taylor6-4, 7-6
W#2 DoublesMonica Erb / Marta Tataje vs Kathryn Bartlett / Madeline Jurch7-5, 6-1
L#3 DoublesEugenia Grow / Sharon Wooten vs Peggy Hoffman / Caroline Donahue7-6, 4-6, 0-1
2025-06-08vs JBlack (Matthews)Won 21
W#1 DoublesKim Cochran / Caroline Boger vs Madison Lohnes / Anna Sharp6-4, 6-3
W#2 DoublesSheryl Beaver / Colleen Hickman vs Tracy Stamey / Paula Donoghue6-3, 7-6
L#3 DoublesEugenia Grow / Tara Croom vs Melanie Freeman / Deana Deep2-6, 6-3, 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 standings10 teams · 18 & Over 3.5
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1MMetzl (Queens)6217718177
2KVerrill (Blakeney)53121226194
3ATaylor (Park Road)4213516161
4MMascia (Carmel)44121227208
5HPhelps/DGreenaway(Bridgehampton)44121230231
6WLutgring (Ballantyne CC)44121230249
7EJohnston (Park Road)339919165
8WSmith (Carmel)35111329233
9JBlack (Matthews)2451330194
10BMoysaenko (Springfield)2681635253

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 3.73 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.

4.34
Caroline Boger
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
4.24
Kim Cochran
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
4.20
Monica Erb
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
3.90
Megan Griffin
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.75
Marta Tataje
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.75
Colleen Hickman
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.68
3.63
Sheryl Beaver
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.48
Sharon Wooten
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.46
Eugenia Grow
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.29
Lynn Selland
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.10
Tara Croom
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Claudia Bareis
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Jenni Beasley
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Meredith Tye
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.

Colleen Hickman + Eugenia Grow6159% games+1.5% vs expected
Colleen Hickman + Sheryl Beaver6453% games−2.4% vs expected
Caroline Boger + Kim Cochran4153% games−8.1% vs expected
Eugenia Grow + Sheryl Beaver3253% gamesnot enough data
Eugenia Grow + Sharon Wooten134 matchesnot enough data
Monica Erb + Megan Griffin134 matchesnot enough data
Megan Griffin + Kim Cochran224 matchesnot enough data
Lynn Selland + Eugenia Grow123 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.

4.5
Caroline Boger
33W–10L career · 5 lines in 2025
<1%89%10%
4.34
Kim Cochran
27W–18L career · 3 lines in 2025
3%94%2%
4.24
4.5
Monica Erb
98W–78L career · 2 lines in 2025
7%92%1%
4.20
Megan Griffin
24W–26L career · 4 lines in 2025
<1%78%21%
3.90
Marta Tataje
7W–20L career · 3 lines in 2025
3%95%3%
3.75
4
Colleen Hickman
56W–63L career · 3 lines in 2025
3%95%3%
3.75
4
Elizabeth Johnston
12W–14L career · no lines in 2025
8%91%1%
3.68
4
Sheryl Beaver
35W–41L career · 2 lines in 2025
16%84%<1%
3.63
3.5
Sharon Wooten
102W–80L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%56%44%
3.48
3.5
Eugenia Grow
57W–50L career · 5 lines in 2025
<1%63%37%
3.46
Lynn Selland
18W–18L career · 2 lines in 2025
1%94%5%
3.29
Tara Croom
43W–94L career · 2 lines in 2025
23%77%<1%
3.10
Claudia Bareis
10W–1L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Jenni Beasley
10W–5L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Meredith Tye
2W–2L career · no lines 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.