Teams

Billings 3.5 Summer DAZE Mon PM

2025 Summer Daze Doubles · 3.5 Mon PM Summer Daze

13 players · average NTRP 3.25 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2025-07-21vs Dulin 3.5 Summer DAZE Mon PMWon 10
W#3 Female DoublesBritt Flanagan / Laura Wallace vs Michele Shigo / Rhonda Glenn3-6, 6-4, 1-0
2025-07-14vs Davis 3.5 Summer DAZE Mon PMLost 01
L#1 Female DoublesReeves Rhoten / Emily Wilson vs Judiann Georgevich / Courtney Jones5-7, 6-4, 0-1
2025-06-30vs Williams 3.5 Summer DAZE Mon PMLost 01
L#3 Female DoublesVicki Amendum / Laura Wallace vs Janess Reyna / Natalie Koeplinger2-6, 3-6
W#2 Female DoublesEmily Wilson / Reeves Rhoten vs Stephanie Barnard / Betsey Wells6-1, 6-1
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 3.5 Mon PM Summer Daze 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 3.09 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.

3.35
Reeves Rhoten
published
3.31
Britt Flanagan
published 3.5
3.30
Lauran Epstein
published
3.21
Stephanie Keaney
published
3.17
Aprille Black
published 3.5
3.10
Emily Wilson
usually #2 Female Doubles 50%, also #1 Female Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.05
Meghan Hilleboe
published
3.04
Mary Winstead
published
2.96
Courtney Dagger
published 3
2.92
Laura Wallace
usually #2 Female Doubles 44%, also #3 Female Doubles 33% · published
2.85
Annetta Bartle
published 3
2.78
Gail Terrell
published 3
Melinda Billings
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.

Annetta Bartle + Lauran Epstein224 matchesnot enough data
Mary Winstead + Lauran Epstein033 matchesnot enough data
Emily Wilson + Lauran Epstein303 matchesnot enough data
Annetta Bartle + Gail Terrell213 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.

Reeves Rhoten
30W–16L career · no lines in 2025
<1%87%13%
3.35
3.5
Britt Flanagan
13W–10L career · no lines in 2025
1%92%7%
3.31
Lauran Epstein
14W–14L career · no lines in 2025
1%93%6%
3.30
Stephanie Keaney
12W–16L career · no lines in 2025
5%93%1%
3.21
3.5
Aprille Black
11W–21L career · no lines in 2025
9%90%1%
3.17
3.5
Emily Wilson
179W–124L career · 2 lines in 2025
23%77%<1%
3.10
Meghan Hilleboe
9W–15L career · no lines in 2025
34%66%<1%
3.05
Mary Winstead
16W–22L career · no lines in 2025
38%62%<1%
3.04
3
Courtney Dagger
37W–29L career · no lines in 2025
<1%62%38%
2.96
Laura Wallace
47W–73L career · 9 lines in 2025
<1%73%27%
2.92
3
Annetta Bartle
15W–17L career · no lines in 2025
<1%87%13%
2.85
3
Gail Terrell
18W–13L career · no lines in 2025
2%94%4%
2.78
Melinda Billings
5W–8L career · no 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.