Teams

Ketcham

2025 · 2026 NOGTA USTA Adult 18 & Over - Fall

10 players · average NTRP 4.00 / GEORGIA

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2025-09-29vs JohnsonWon 10
W#2 DoublesJulie Briggs / Callie Voges vs Elizabeth Morgan / Angie Paulson6-3, 6-4
2025-09-22Lost 01
L#1 DoublesJulie Briggs / Callie Voges vs Olivia Williams / Rekha Geethadevi4-6, 3-6
2025-09-08Won 10
W#1 DoublesLaura Ketcham / Melee Gautreau vs Jenni Johnson / Rekha Geethadevi6-7, 7-6, 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 2026 NOGTA USTA Adult 18 & Over - Fall 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 3.54 estimated across 9 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.

3.81
Courtney Brunetz
usually #2 Doubles 80%, also #1 Doubles 20% · published 4
Callie Voges
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.67
Laura Ketcham
usually #1 Doubles 73%, also #2 Doubles 9% · published
3.66
Stacy Sorrow
usually #2 Doubles 46%, also #1 Doubles 46% · published
3.61
Joni Wolfe
usually #3 Doubles 38%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
3.60
Melee Gautreau
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.45
Carmon Hipp
usually #3 Doubles 71%, also #2 Doubles 14% · published 4
3.43
Jill Joyce
usually #3 Doubles 40%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published
3.35
Julie Briggs
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
3.30
Brittany Portwood
usually #1 Doubles 33%, also #2 Doubles 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.

Julie Briggs + Callie Voges5160% games+19.3% vs expected
Laura Ketcham + Joni Wolfe6157% gamesnot enough data
Stacy Sorrow + Laura Ketcham213 matchesnot enough data
Stacy Sorrow + Julie Briggs123 matchesnot enough data
Courtney Brunetz + Jill Joyce213 matchesnot enough data
Julie Briggs + Joni Wolfe213 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
Courtney Brunetz
17W–5L career · 5 lines in 2026
1%89%9%
3.81
4
Callie Voges
7W–3L career · 2 lines in 2026
not enough data
Laura Ketcham
62W–8L career · 11 lines in 2026
<1%<1%>99%
3.67
Stacy Sorrow
42W–25L career · 13 lines in 2026
13%86%1%
3.66
Joni Wolfe
46W–15L career · 8 lines in 2026
<1%<1%>99%
3.61
Melee Gautreau
6W–0L career · 1 line in 2026
24%76%<1%
3.60
4
Carmon Hipp
19W–5L career · 7 lines in 2026
63%37%<1%
3.45
Jill Joyce
19W–10L career · 5 lines in 2026
69%31%<1%
3.43
Julie Briggs
19W–9L career · 3 lines in 2026
86%14%<1%
3.35
4
Brittany Portwood
31W–5L career · 9 lines in 2026
92%8%<1%
3.30

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.