Teams

Walker/Nashville

2025 Combo 18 & Over - Nashville · 5.5 Women - FRI AM & MON PM

12 players · average NTRP 3.00 / TENNESSEE

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2025-09-15vs Pendergraft/NashvilleWon 30
W#1 DoublesMeg Stemmler / Margaret Bourland vs Michelle Nealy / Ashley Kirkland6-1, 6-1
W#2 DoublesAmelia Brown / Emma Caylor vs Emily Eggebrecht / Sarah Ann Pendergraft6-1, 6-1
W#3 DoublesHeidi Kemp / Reagan Buie vs Jenny Hamrick / Margaret Emley6-2, 6-2
2025-08-18vs Pendergraft/NashvilleWon 30
W#1 DoublesLeslie Klurfeld / Amelia Brown vs Casey OGrady / Rita Spellings6-3, 7-5
W#2 DoublesRachel Walker / Emily Richardson vs Elizabeth Derck / Michelle Nealy6-3, 6-2
W#3 DoublesErin Schorkopf / Cristin Webb vs Emily Eggebrecht / Margaret Emley6-2, 6-7, 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 5.5 Women - FRI AM & MON PM 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 2.54 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.

2.71
Margaret Bourland
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.70
Rachel Walker
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.68
Emma Caylor
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.65
Amelia Brown
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3
2.60
Cristin Webb
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.57
Heidi Kemp
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.52
Emma Guidry
published
2.47
Jennifer Mui
published
2.45
Erin Schorkopf
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.41
Meg Stemmler
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.36
Reagan Buie
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.35
Leslie Klurfeld
usually #1 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.

Meg Stemmler + Margaret Bourland5262% games+20.8% vs expected
Leslie Klurfeld + Rachel Walker2345% games+1.9% vs expected
Cristin Webb + Heidi Kemp1543% games−4.1% vs expected
Rachel Walker + Emma Guidry224 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.

Margaret Bourland
11W–10L career · 1 line in 2025
7%91%2%
2.71
Rachel Walker
16W–19L career · 1 line in 2025
8%91%2%
2.70
Emma Caylor
6W–5L career · 1 line in 2025
10%89%1%
2.68
3
Amelia Brown
10W–3L career · 2 lines in 2025
14%85%1%
2.65
3
Cristin Webb
5W–8L career · 1 line in 2025
25%75%<1%
2.60
Heidi Kemp
3W–6L career · 1 line in 2025
30%70%<1%
2.57
Emma Guidry
5W–13L career · no lines in 2025
45%55%<1%
2.52
Jennifer Mui
4W–18L career · no lines in 2025
59%41%<1%
2.47
Erin Schorkopf
11W–4L career · 1 line in 2025
0%65%35%
2.45
Meg Stemmler
18W–11L career · 1 line in 2025
0%74%26%
2.41
Reagan Buie
13W–10L career · 1 line in 2025
0%83%17%
2.36
Leslie Klurfeld
4W–7L career · 1 line in 2025
86%14%<1%
2.35

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.