Nall/Dixon 40s 3.0W Mon PM
2026 Piedmont USTA 40 & Over · WOMEN 3.0 40 & Over
13 players · average NTRP 3.00 / NORTH CAROLINA
No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.
Schedule9 played
i
Flight standings20 teams · WOMEN 3.0 40 & Over
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1Busch 40s 3.0W Mon PM | 10 | 0 | 12 | 205 |
| 2Higgins-Allred 40s 3.0W Mon PM | 9 | 0 | 12 | 173 |
| 3Cathey/Fields 40s 3.0W Mon PM | 8 | 1 | 11 | 137 |
| 4Olalere 40s 3.0W Mon PM | 7 | 2 | 26 | 220 |
| 5Terrell 40s 3.0W Mon AM | 6 | 3 | 23 | 208 |
| 6Davis/Varner 40s 3.0W Mon AM | 6 | 3 | 28 | 225 |
| 7Taylordean 40s 3.0W Mon AM | 6 | 3 | 29 | 243 |
| 8Milani 40s 3.0W Mon PM | 6 | 4 | 29 | 240 |
| 9Nall/Dixon 40s 3.0W Mon PM | 5 | 4 | 29 | 241 |
| 10Pressley 40s 3.0W Mon PM | 5 | 5 | 27 | 238 |
| 11Cooke/Farley 40s 3.0 W MON PM | 5 | 5 | 28 | 235 |
| 12O'Shaughnessy 40s 3.0W Mon PM | 4 | 5 | 28 | 228 |
| 13Ysidron 40s 3.0W Mon PM | 4 | 5 | 31 | 232 |
| 14Lynde-Rhyne 40s 3.0W Mon PM | 4 | 5 | 39 | 283 |
| 15Stichter 40s 3.0W Mon PM | 3 | 7 | 38 | 282 |
| 16Hensel/Payne 40s 3.0W Mon PM | 2 | 7 | 38 | 280 |
| 17Tucker 40s 3.0W Mon PM | 1 | 8 | 43 | 288 |
| 18Bushnell 40s 3.0W Mon PM | 1 | 8 | 46 | 287 |
| 19Barnes 40s 3.0W Mon PM | 1 | 9 | 58 | 358 |
| 20Michaels 40s 3.0W Mon AM | 0 | 9 | 51 | 308 |
Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.
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 2.73 estimated across 13 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.
Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.
| Bridget Cornwall + Lauren Tankersley | 4–1 | 56% games | +16.5% vs expected |
| Sharlotte Brooks + Amber Siesling | 4–2 | 56% games | +15.7% vs expected |
| Amber Siesling + Margaret Beck | 3–3 | 50% games | +11.8% vs expected |
| Sharlotte Brooks + Margaret Beck | 4–2 | 53% games | +7.4% vs expected |
| Jennifer Nall + Tina Dixon | 0–5 | 31% games | −3.8% vs expected |
| Bridget Cornwall + Amber Siesling | 4–2 | 48% games | −6.8% vs expected |
| Bridget Cornwall + Jennifer Nall | 2–2 | 4 matches | not enough data |
| Jennifer Nall + LoriAnn Owen | 1–3 | 4 matches | not enough data |
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.
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.