Teams

PRC - Meredith/Bradley

2025 B'ham Tri-Level Weeknight - 40 & Over M · W

12 players · average NTRP 3.67 / ALABAMA

View scouting list →
Schedule1 played
2025-06-26vs JLTC - Maneice Tri-LevelLost 12
L#1 DoublesApril Wittmann / Meredith Vinson vs Lashawna Stokes / Kenya Middleton3-6, 6-3, 0-1
L#2 DoublesCourtney Taylor / Jennifer Causey vs Charlene Linson / Miranda ONeal3-6, 0-6
W#3 DoublesAmanda Kennedy / Jacquelyn Taylor vs Beverly Thomas / Paige Goldman6-1, 6-0
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 W 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 3.41 estimated across 12 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.

3.93
Kirstie Ivey
published
3.79
Lani Perrigo
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.62
Kim Chunn
published
3.46
April Wittmann
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.41
Stacey Bradley
published
3.39
Meredith Vinson
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.34
Melanie Frusterio
published
3.30
Nicole Meredith
published
3.27
Michelle Davenport
published
3.24
Courtney Taylor
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.15
Jennifer Causey
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.04
Jacquelyn Taylor
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
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.

Kirstie Ivey + Nicole Meredith4252% games+6.0% vs expected
Stacey Bradley + Nicole Meredith41243% games−0.1% vs expected
Melanie Frusterio + Nicole Meredith6455% games−2.6% vs expected
Meredith Vinson + April Wittmann2639% games−3.8% vs expected
Stacey Bradley + Kirstie Ivey1445% games−7.7% vs expected
Meredith Vinson + Melanie Frusterio3641% games−12.0% vs expected
Kim Chunn + Meredith Vinson4147% gamesnot enough data
Lani Perrigo + Meredith Vinson224 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.

Kirstie Ivey
89W–54L career · no lines in 2025
<1%69%31%
3.93
Lani Perrigo
70W–39L career · 1 line in 2025
1%94%5%
3.79
Kim Chunn
38W–40L career · no lines in 2025
17%83%<1%
3.62
4
April Wittmann
17W–47L career · 1 line in 2025
61%39%<1%
3.46
Stacey Bradley
29W–47L career · no lines in 2025
<1%75%25%
3.41
Meredith Vinson
33W–81L career · 1 line in 2025
81%19%<1%
3.39
Melanie Frusterio
70W–46L career · no lines in 2025
<1%89%11%
3.34
Nicole Meredith
50W–67L career · no lines in 2025
1%93%6%
3.30
Michelle Davenport
84W–46L career · no lines in 2025
<1%2%98%
3.27
3.5
Courtney Taylor
44W–37L career · 1 line in 2025
3%95%2%
3.24
Jennifer Causey
27W–31L career · 1 line in 2025
13%86%<1%
3.15
3.5
Jacquelyn Taylor
27W–23L career · 1 line in 2025
38%62%<1%
3.04

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.