Teams

Parkerson-Winona

2025 Adult 40 & Over-DLT · Women 3.0

11 players · average NTRP 3.00 / MISSISSIPPI

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2025-04-22vs Dodd - ICCSplit 22
L#1 DoublesCindy Boone / Debbie Roberts vs Delma Brown / Ssusan Spencer5-7, 4-6
W#1 SinglesJulie Whitfield vs Vickie L Dodd6-2, 6-2
L#2 DoublesBecky Flowers / Ginger Perry vs Cassey Hardin / Lori Chism3-6, 1-6
W#3 DoublesCherri Hunt / Tonya Blakely vs Beverly Hale / Leigh Lovelace4-6, 6-1, 1-0
2025-03-27vs Dodd - ICCLost 13
W#1 DoublesCherri Hunt / Becky Flowers vs Angela Lang / Beverly Hale6-1, 6-4
L#1 SinglesTonya Blakely vs Laura Keith3-6, 5-7
L#2 DoublesTabitha McCrory / Brenda Blaylock vs Corri Zepponi / Lori Chism1-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesNancy Parkerson / MARLEE GOLDEN vs Margaret Jones / Cassey Hardin3-6, 1-6
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 standings for Women 3.0 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 2.64 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.

2.77
Nancy Parkerson
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.76
MARLEE GOLDEN
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Cherri Hunt
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3
Cindy Boone
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.70
Brenda Blaylock
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.65
Ginger Perry
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.61
Tonya Blakely
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
2.52
Becky Flowers
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3
2.47
Debbie Roberts
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
Julie Whitfield
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
Tabitha McCrory
usually #2 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.

Nancy Parkerson + MARLEE GOLDEN9359% games+9.1% vs expected
Becky Flowers + Ginger Perry3441% games−7.0% vs expected
Debbie Roberts + Tonya Blakely134 matchesnot enough data
Becky Flowers + Cherri Hunt123 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.

Nancy Parkerson
15W–7L career · 1 line in 2025
3%92%5%
2.77
MARLEE GOLDEN
11W–7L career · 1 line in 2025
3%93%4%
2.76
3
Cherri Hunt
5W–7L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
3
Cindy Boone
1W–3L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
3
Brenda Blaylock
3W–5L career · 1 line in 2025
7%91%2%
2.70
Ginger Perry
5W–7L career · 1 line in 2025
15%84%1%
2.65
Tonya Blakely
4W–7L career · 2 lines in 2025
22%78%<1%
2.61
3
Becky Flowers
5W–12L career · 2 lines in 2025
45%55%<1%
2.52
3
Debbie Roberts
1W–8L career · 1 line in 2025
58%42%<1%
2.47
Julie Whitfield
1W–1L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Tabitha McCrory
0W–1L career · 1 line 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.