Teams

MS 8.5W 55 & Over (Davis)

2025 Combo 55 & Over-JXN · Women 8.5

12 players · average NTRP 4.25 / MISSISSIPPI

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2025-11-03vs Jackson, SusanWon 20
W#1 DoublesLauree Davis / Kendall Yates vs Jennifer Evans / Susan Jackson6-3, 6-3
W#2 DoublesKathleen Morgan / Gretchen Ware vs Nancy Thompson / Becky Pardue7-6, 7-6
2025-10-31vs Jackson, SusanSplit 11
W#1 DoublesKathleen Morgan / Vanessa Wilson vs Susan Jackson / Nancy Thompson6-2, 6-1
L#2 DoublesAngie DeLeon / Ashley Parker vs Jennifer Evans / Becky Pardue4-6, 4-6
2025-10-28Won 10
W#3 DoublesAngie DeLeon / Yvette Mc Pherson vs N/A6-0, 6-0
2025-10-27vs Jackson, SusanLost 01
L#1 DoublesVanessa Wilson / Angie DeLeon vs Susan Jackson / Becky Pardue6-7, 5-7
2025-10-23Won 10
W#3 DoublesCelia Coffey / Yvette Mc Pherson vs N/A6-0, 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 Women 8.5 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 3.79 estimated across 8 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.

4.29
Yvette Mc Pherson
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
4.25
Cami Stone-Hill
published 4.5
3.88
Kathleen Morgan
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
Celia Coffey
published 4
3.70
Kim Tatum
published
3.64
Lauree Davis
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.60
Angie DeLeon
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.50
Melissa K Beach
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
3.44
Gretchen Ware
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Kendall Yates
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Melanie Billman
published
Vanessa Wilson
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.

Lauree Davis + Melissa K Beach6162% games+23.3% vs expected
Lauree Davis + Vanessa Wilson10075% games+8.6% vs expected
Lauree Davis + Angie DeLeon4261% games−1.5% vs expected
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.

4.5
Yvette Mc Pherson
49W–22L career · 2 lines in 2025
2%91%7%
4.29
4.5
Cami Stone-Hill
9W–1L career · no lines in 2025
4%93%4%
4.25
Kathleen Morgan
8W–4L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%<1%>99%
3.88
4
Celia Coffey
12W–8L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Kim Tatum
11W–7L career · no lines in 2025
0%<1%>99%
3.70
Lauree Davis
43W–8L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%<1%>99%
3.64
4
Angie DeLeon
18W–18L career · 3 lines in 2025
24%76%<1%
3.60
Melissa K Beach
34W–17L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%<1%>99%
3.50
Gretchen Ware
22W–12L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%<1%>99%
3.44
Kendall Yates
1W–0L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Melanie Billman
0W–3L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Vanessa Wilson
20W–7L career · 3 lines 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.