Teams

Coker/LF

2024 TUL ADULT 40 & Over WOMEN League · 2.5 WOMEN

10 players · average NTRP 2.58 / OKLAHOMA

No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.

View scouting list →
Schedule10 played
2023-11-15vs Amber Hendrix/LFWon 30
W#1 DoublesJamie Huth / Christy Reece vs Amber Hendrix / Marla Cole1-6, 6-4, 1-0
W#1 SinglesJen Taylor vs Leah Jappe6-3, 4-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesMichelle Salyer / Chere Fergerson vs Allison Jacobs / Nicole McDaniel6-2, 6-3
2023-11-07vs Long/CRLost 12
W#1 DoublesJen Taylor / Jamie Huth vs Tiffany Osborne / Jenifer Gravley6-1, 6-1
L#1 SinglesAmelie Seneker vs Meredith Casillas0-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesChere Fergerson / Christy Reece vs Tami Foust / Brandy Roulet6-0, 2-6, 0-1
2023-10-23vs Barns/LFWon 20
W#1 DoublesJen Taylor / Christy Reece vs Tena Wooldridge / Erin McManus7-6, 5-7, 1-0
W#2 DoublesChere Fergerson / Michelle Salyer vs Sandie Barns / Rebecca Gillego6-2, 7-6
2023-10-16vs Crowley/ISWon 21
W#1 DoublesJamie Huth / Beth Peters vs Debbie Crowley / Kay Gulledge6-3, 4-6, 1-0
W#1 SinglesJen Taylor vs Michelle Spillars6-3, 6-4
L#2 DoublesChere Fergerson / Amelie Seneker vs Nancy Park / Lori Smith7-5, 1-6, 0-1
2023-10-12vs OK/Stewart/LFLost 12
L#1 DoublesChere Fergerson / Christy Reece vs Erin Capps / Melinda Humphrey0-6, 0-6
W#1 SinglesJamie Huth vs Vivian Rogers5-7, 6-2, 1-0
L#2 DoublesBeth Peters / Michelle Salyer vs Christy Stewart / Michelle Clevenger-Quinn1-6, 1-6
2023-09-27vs Watson/LFWon 21
W#1 DoublesChere Fergerson / Christy Reece vs Stephanie Heckenkemper / Rashell Ruefly6-0, 6-3
L#1 SinglesMichelle Salyer vs Krystal ONan0-6, 5-7
W#2 DoublesAmelie Seneker / Beth Peters vs Kaylynn Elmore / Lindsey Helmerich6-1, 3-6, 1-0
2023-09-21vs Swiggett/LFLost 12
W#1 DoublesJamie Huth / Jen Taylor vs Missy Torgerson / Bonnie Presley6-2, 6-2
L#1 SinglesChristy Reece vs Jennifer Hamilton2-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesMichelle Salyer / Amelie Seneker vs Breezy Battenfield / Audrey Reeves2-6, 6-7
2023-09-13vs Wills/TTCLost 03
L#1 DoublesMichelle Salyer / Stacey Coker vs Katie Gibbon / Lacy Daley0-6, 0-6
L#1 SinglesJamie Huth vs Janna Lemons6-4, 4-6, 0-1
L#2 DoublesBeth Peters / Chere Fergerson vs Melissa Easterling / Katie Sachse0-6, 1-6
2023-09-06vs McCaskill/LFLost 12
L#1 DoublesJen Taylor / Michelle Salyer vs Georgette Morris / LaQuisha Epps1-6, 3-6
L#1 SinglesLeslie Southerland vs Tia Hill1-6, 2-6
W#2 DoublesChere Fergerson / Christy Reece vs Robin Hoskins / Cathy Hodgs3-6, 6-2, 1-0
2023-08-29vs Hansen/CRLost 02
L#1 DoublesLeslie Southerland / Jamie Huth vs Barbara Ford / Heather Smith3-6, 7-6, 0-1
L#2 DoublesStacey Coker / Amelie Seneker vs Heather Conklin / Patricia Mapel4-6, 4-6
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 2.5 WOMEN 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 2.21 estimated across 9 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.

2.70
Jen Taylor
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #1 Singles 33% · published
2.59
Jamie Huth
usually #1 Doubles 71%, also #1 Singles 29% · published 3
Beth Peters
published 2.5
2.17
Amelie Seneker
usually #2 Doubles 80%, also #1 Singles 20% · published 2.5
2.14
Christy Reece
usually #1 Doubles 57%, also #2 Doubles 29% · published 2.5
2.12
Michelle Salyer
usually #2 Doubles 57%, also #1 Doubles 29% · published
2.07
Stacey Coker
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
2.04
Chere Fergerson
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 2.5
2.03
Leslie Southerland
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 50% · published
2.00
Holly Raley
published 2.5
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.

Jen Taylor + Jamie Huth131156% games+10.2% vs expected
Michelle Salyer + Leslie Southerland4350% games+5.4% vs expected
Chere Fergerson + Christy Reece2543% games−1.8% vs expected
Chere Fergerson + Stacey Coker224 matchesnot enough data
Amelie Seneker + Michelle Salyer123 matchesnot enough data
Amelie Seneker + Stacey Coker213 matchesnot enough data
Michelle Salyer + Chere Fergerson303 matchesnot enough data
Leslie Southerland + Jamie Huth033 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.

Jen Taylor
23W–32L career · 6 lines in 2024
6%93%1%
2.70
3
Jamie Huth
23W–35L career · 7 lines in 2024
24%76%<1%
2.59
2.5
Beth Peters
0W–4L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
2.5
Amelie Seneker
8W–17L career · 5 lines in 2024
0%99%1%
2.17
2.5
Christy Reece
18W–40L career · 7 lines in 2024
0%>99%<1%
2.14
Michelle Salyer
14W–40L career · 7 lines in 2024
0%>99%<1%
2.12
Stacey Coker
19W–36L career · 2 lines in 2024
0%>99%<1%
2.07
2.5
Chere Fergerson
7W–26L career · 8 lines in 2024
0%>99%<1%
2.04
Leslie Southerland
17W–49L career · 2 lines in 2024
0%>99%<1%
2.03
2.5
Holly Raley
8W–13L career · no lines in 2024
0%>99%<1%
2.00

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.