Teams

Cowart-Janiszewski/META

2025 Adult 40 & Over-META · 3.0 Women

14 players · average NTRP 3.00 / TENNESSEE

View scouting list →
Schedule7 played
2025-05-18vs Hagood40+3.0/METAWon 31
L#1 DoublesBarb Janiszewski / Regan Jordan vs Ju Mo / Kari Holt5-7, 2-6
W#1 SinglesKelly Kattesh vs Margaret Wells6-3, 6-2
W#2 DoublesMadga Cox / Tiffany Scardo vs Anita Jilton / Joan Hagood7-6, 6-7, 1-0
W#3 DoublesJan Goodsell / Sherri Johnston vs Pamela Prince-Eason / Gabriela Stai6-1, 7-5
2025-05-14vs Hagood40+3.0/METALost 12
W#1 DoublesMadga Cox / Barb Janiszewski vs Margaret Wells / Cindy Young6-2, 6-1
L#1 SinglesRachel Lovelace vs Kari Holt6-2, 1-6, 0-1
L#2 DoublesLinda Cowart / Jan Goodsell vs Anita Jilton / Joan Hagood0-6, 1-6
2025-05-04vs Hagood40+3.0/METAWon 30
W#1 DoublesJane Dean / Lynne Little vs Joan Hagood / Ju Mo6-3, 7-6
W#1 SinglesTiffany Scardo vs Makie Kordamiri6-2, 6-7, 1-0
W#2 DoublesMadga Cox / Kelly Kattesh vs Pamela Prince-Eason / Anita Jilton6-3, 1-6, 1-0
2025-04-27vs Hagood40+3.0/METAWon 31
W#1 DoublesLynne Little / Sherri Johnston vs Keo Jur / Joan Hagood6-4, 6-4
W#1 SinglesKirsten Hoskins vs Makie Kordamiri6-1, 6-3
W#2 DoublesRachel Lovelace / Tiffany Scardo vs Anneke Self / Anita Jilton6-4, 6-4
L#3 DoublesBarb Janiszewski / Kim Cartier vs Margaret Wells / Cindy Young7-6, 4-6, 1-0
2025-04-13vs Hagood40+3.0/METAWon 31
W#1 DoublesJane Dean / Regan Jordan vs Anita Jilton / Pamela Prince-Eason6-2, 4-6, 1-0
W#1 SinglesKirsten Hoskins vs Margaret Wells6-0, 6-3
L#2 DoublesRachel Lovelace / Ashley Youngblood vs Joan Hagood / Keo Jur2-6, 3-6
W#3 DoublesJan Goodsell / Sherri Johnston vs Anneke Self / Makie Kordamiri6-0, 6-1
2025-04-02vs Hagood40+3.0/METASplit 22
L#1 DoublesRachel Lovelace / Ashley Youngblood vs Keo Jur / Anneke Self2-6, 0-6
W#1 SinglesMadga Cox vs Kari Holt6-1, 6-3
L#2 DoublesRegan Jordan / Tiffany Scardo vs Joan Hagood / Anita Jilton6-1, 4-6, 0-1
W#3 DoublesKim Cartier / Barb Janiszewski vs Makie Kordamiri / Margaret Wells2-6, 6-0, 1-0
2025-03-23vs Hagood40+3.0/METAWon 31
W#1 DoublesLynne Little / Jane Dean vs Makie Kordamiri / Lisa Peterson6-3, 6-3
W#1 SinglesKirsten Hoskins vs Margaret Wells6-1, 6-0
L#2 DoublesRegan Jordan / Kelly Kattesh vs Anita Jilton / Kari Holt4-6, 4-6
W#3 DoublesRachel Lovelace / Ashley Youngblood vs Joan Hagood / Keo Jur6-3, 7-5
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 3.0 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 2.88 estimated across 11 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.

3.16
Lynne Little
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.12
Madga Cox
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 25% · published
3.10
Sherri Johnston
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
3.10
Jane Dean
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.99
Regan Jordan
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
2.95
Jan Goodsell
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
2.93
Kirsten Hoskins
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
2.65
Ashley Youngblood
usually #1 Doubles 33%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.62
Kelly Kattesh
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Singles 33% · published
2.60
Barb Janiszewski
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 3
2.49
Linda Cowart
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Kim Cartier
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Rachel Lovelace
usually #2 Doubles 40%, also #1 Doubles 20% · published
Tiffany Scardo
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #1 Singles 25% · 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.

Jane Dean + Kirsten Hoskins5447% games−8.0% vs expected
Lynne Little + Madga Cox404 matchesnot enough data
Rachel Lovelace + Ashley Youngblood123 matchesnot enough data
Lynne Little + Jane Dean303 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.

Lynne Little
31W–13L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%13%87%
3.16
Madga Cox
25W–9L career · 4 lines in 2025
<1%20%80%
3.12
Sherri Johnston
3W–3L career · 3 lines in 2025
24%76%<1%
3.10
Jane Dean
16W–13L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%25%75%
3.10
Regan Jordan
16W–22L career · 4 lines in 2025
<1%53%47%
2.99
Jan Goodsell
2W–7L career · 3 lines in 2025
64%36%<1%
2.95
Kirsten Hoskins
9W–12L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%70%30%
2.93
3
Ashley Youngblood
5W–10L career · type A · 3 lines in 2025
14%85%1%
2.65
Kelly Kattesh
3W–8L career · 3 lines in 2025
19%81%<1%
2.62
3
Barb Janiszewski
12W–18L career · 4 lines in 2025
24%75%<1%
2.60
Linda Cowart
3W–9L career · 1 line in 2025
52%48%<1%
2.49
Kim Cartier
1W–6L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Rachel Lovelace
8W–15L career · 5 lines in 2025
not enough data
Tiffany Scardo
3W–4L career · 4 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.