Teams

Em.Johnson40S

2026 Capital Singles 40 & Over · 4.0 Women

8 players · average NTRP 4.00 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule7 played
2026-07-30vs Je.Phillips40SLost 02
L#1 SinglesButton Hall vs KATRINA SIZEMORE2-6, 4-6
L#2 SinglesKimberly Patrey vs Jennifer Ravenscraft1-4
2026-07-08vs St.Luther40SWon 20
W#1 SinglesRachael Kiker vs Annette Page6-1, 6-0
W#3 SinglesJane Williams vs Stephanie Luther6-0, 6-1
2026-07-01vs Je.Phillips40SSplit 11
W#1 SinglesKristen Boyce vs KATRINA SIZEMORE6-1, 6-4
L#2 SinglesButton Hall vs Jennifer Kuzma5-7, 3-6
2026-06-17vs St.Luther40SWon 10
W#3 SinglesKimberly Patrey vs Korri Styers6-3, 6-2
2026-06-10vs Je.Phillips40SLost 12
W#1 SinglesKimberly Patrey vs Jennifer Ravenscraft7-5, 6-2
L#2 SinglesButton Hall vs Jessica Phillips3-6, 3-6
L#3 SinglesChristine Hughes vs Anna Jane Franklin3-6, 4-6
2026-05-27vs St.Luther40SWon 20
W#2 SinglesRachael Kiker vs Kara Rectenwald6-4, 6-2
W#3 SinglesJane Williams vs Stephanie Luther6-1, 6-2
2026-05-20vs Je.Phillips40SSplit 11
W#2 SinglesChristine Hughes vs Jennifer Kuzma6-4, 6-1
L#3 SinglesErika Grenier vs Anna Jane Franklin3-6, 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 standings3 teams · 4.0 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Je.Phillips40S8019512137
2Em.Johnson40S34111021173
3St.Luther40S0731836223

Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.

See the full flight, with every team’s record

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 3.75 estimated across 7 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.

4.01
Rachael Kiker
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #1 Singles 50% · published 4
3.84
Carolyn Lee
published 4
3.79
Kristen Boyce
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
Erika Grenier
usually #3 Singles 100% · published 4
3.73
Christine Hughes
usually #3 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 50% · published 4
3.71
Jane Williams
usually #3 Singles 100% · published 4
3.60
Kimberly Patrey
usually #1 Singles 33%, also #3 Singles 33% · published 4
3.60
Button Hall
usually #2 Singles 67%, also #1 Singles 33% · published 4
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.

Kimberly Patrey + Jane Williams151350% games−2.4% vs expected
Kimberly Patrey + Button Hall033 matchesnot enough data
Carolyn Lee + Rachael Kiker303 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.

4
Rachael Kiker
164W–91L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%48%52%
4.01
4
Carolyn Lee
35W–16L career · no lines in 2026
<1%89%10%
3.84
Kristen Boyce
26W–16L career · 1 line in 2026
1%94%5%
3.79
4
Erika Grenier
0W–1L career · 1 line in 2026
not enough data
4
Christine Hughes
23W–29L career · 2 lines in 2026
4%94%2%
3.73
4
Jane Williams
309W–299L career · 2 lines in 2026
6%93%1%
3.71
4
Kimberly Patrey
238W–186L career · 3 lines in 2026
21%79%<1%
3.60
4
Button Hall
223W–223L career · 3 lines in 2026
22%78%<1%
3.60

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.