Teams

9.0W Shreveport Day - Pernici

55 & Over Adult Local At State - Women · 9.0 Combined Local at State - Women

7 players · average NTRP 4.33 / LOUISIANA

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2026-04-25vs LA 9.0W 55 & Over (Calamari)Lost 12
L#1 DoublesCarla Hildebrand / Sheila Pernici vs Kimberly Calamari / Pam Brandner5-7, 3-6
W#2 DoublesTammy Cannon / Tammie Williams vs Michelle Baker / Darbi Philibert6-1, 7-6
L#3 DoublesDonna McGee / Claire Burgess vs Ann Melius / Sherri White6-2, 4-6, 0-1
2026-04-25vs LA 9.0W 55 & Over (Calamari)Lost 12
L#1 DoublesTammie Williams / Tammy Cannon vs Kimberly Calamari / Sherri White2-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesDonna McGee / Claire Burgess vs Ann Melius / Kathryn Talbot5-7, 3-6
W#3 DoublesSheila Pernici / Carla Hildebrand vs Michelle Baker / Darbi Philibert6-1, 6-2
2026-04-24vs LA 9.0W 55 & Over (Calamari)Lost 12
W#1 DoublesTammy Cannon / Tammie Williams vs Ann Melius / Sherri White6-0, 6-4
L#2 DoublesDonna McGee / Catherine Hardy vs Kathryn Talbot / Michelle Baker2-6, 6-7
L#3 DoublesCarla Hildebrand / Sheila Pernici vs Kimberly Calamari / Pam Brandner1-6, 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 standings2 teams · 9.0 Combined Local at State - Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1LA 9.0W 55 & Over (Calamari)3063881
29.0W Shreveport Day - Pernici03361284

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 4.01 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.

4.28
Carla Hildebrand
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 4.5
4.08
Donna McGee
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
4.02
Claire Burgess
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 4.5
4.02
Sheila Pernici
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
4.02
Tammy Cannon
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.65
Catherine Hardy
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
Tammie Williams
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · 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.

Carla Hildebrand + Sheila Pernici5650% games−12.9% vs expected
Tammy Cannon + Tammie Williams213 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
Carla Hildebrand
19W–24L career · 3 lines in 2026
2%92%6%
4.28
Donna McGee
13W–9L career · 3 lines in 2026
29%71%<1%
4.08
4.5
Claire Burgess
13W–17L career · 2 lines in 2026
45%55%<1%
4.02
Sheila Pernici
12W–13L career · 3 lines in 2026
45%55%<1%
4.02
Tammy Cannon
20W–17L career · 3 lines in 2026
45%55%<1%
4.02
4
Catherine Hardy
13W–7L career · 1 line in 2026
14%86%1%
3.65
Tammie Williams
2W–4L career · 3 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.