Teams

Palk/Nashville

2025 Tri-Level 40 & Over - Nashville · 4.0, 3.5, 3.0 Women - Wednesday AM

16 players · average NTRP 3.50 / TENNESSEE

View scouting list →
Schedule1 played
2025-07-09vs Comegna/NashvilleWon 21
W#1 DoublesBernadette Glasgow / Amy McEvoy vs Mindy Higgins / Maggie Kuyper6-4, 6-1
L#2 DoublesMichelle Palk / Desiree Appleby vs Erica Collins / Sarah MacIntyre3-6, 1-6
W#3 DoublesSamantha Sellers / Stephanie Knight vs Jennifer Comegna / Nicole Keenan4-6, 6-4, 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 standings for 4.0, 3.5, 3.0 Women - Wednesday AM 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 3.24 estimated across 14 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.

3.72
Tanya Capeling
published
3.65
Tara Reidy
published
3.65
Amy McEvoy
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.61
Bernadette Glasgow
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.43
Michelle Palk
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.28
Bettina Moore
published 3.5
3.25
Sue Anne Perry
published
3.23
Kristie Skoda
published
3.16
Anne Disney
published 3.5
3.06
Desiree Appleby
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.05
Whitney Thompson
published
2.87
Cindy Denson
published 3
2.83
Mary Beth Riley
published
Courtney Conklin
published 3
2.62
Stephanie Knight
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Samantha Sellers
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.

Bettina Moore + Whitney Thompson6554% games+5.7% vs expected
Michelle Palk + Desiree Appleby1442% games−11.5% vs expected
Sue Anne Perry + Kristie Skoda224 matchesnot enough data
Stephanie Knight + Mary Beth Riley134 matchesnot enough data
Cindy Denson + Samantha Sellers033 matchesnot enough data
Amy McEvoy + Desiree Appleby213 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.

Tanya Capeling
6W–10L career · no lines in 2025
6%92%2%
3.72
Tara Reidy
7W–2L career · no lines in 2025
14%85%1%
3.65
4
Amy McEvoy
16W–12L career · 1 line in 2025
14%85%1%
3.65
4
Bernadette Glasgow
3W–5L career · 1 line in 2025
22%78%<1%
3.61
Michelle Palk
12W–14L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%69%31%
3.43
3.5
Bettina Moore
9W–9L career · no lines in 2025
2%92%6%
3.28
Sue Anne Perry
20W–25L career · no lines in 2025
3%93%4%
3.25
Kristie Skoda
4W–13L career · no lines in 2025
5%92%3%
3.23
3.5
Anne Disney
2W–5L career · no lines in 2025
13%86%1%
3.16
3.5
Desiree Appleby
4W–17L career · 1 line in 2025
32%68%<1%
3.06
Whitney Thompson
8W–7L career · no lines in 2025
37%63%<1%
3.05
3
Cindy Denson
4W–10L career · no lines in 2025
<1%82%18%
2.87
Mary Beth Riley
11W–13L career · no lines in 2025
1%87%12%
2.83
3
Courtney Conklin
1W–4L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Stephanie Knight
10W–16L career · 1 line in 2025
21%79%<1%
2.62
Samantha Sellers
1W–4L 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.