Teams

GR - Stephenson

2025 Tri Level 55 and Above · Womens 3.0

9 players · average NTRP 3.25 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2025-03-02vs OPCHICSWon 30
W#1 DoublesJeanette Sasser / Sherry Smith vs Kim Alford / Sandy Phillips6-3, 6-2
W#2 DoublesWhitney Musgrave / Susan Johnson vs Mariana Goldstein / Tracy Wilkinson6-4, 6-3
W#3 DoublesKaren Copeland / Lisa Thigpen vs Annita Best / Susan Hardison6-4, 3-6, 1-0
2025-03-01vs OPCHICSWon 21
W#1 DoublesSherry Smith / Jeanette Sasser vs Kim Alford / Sandy Phillips6-2, 6-3
L#2 DoublesPaige Temple / Darlene Worthington vs Tracy Wilkinson / Debra Johann4-6, 4-6
W#3 DoublesDebbie Stephenson / Lisa Thigpen vs Susan Hardison / Kathryn Custer4-6, 6-3, 1-0
2025-03-01vs Fun GirlsWon 21
W#1 DoublesGaye Brinn / Ina Jones vs Doreen Hyet / Lisa Zurawski6-2, 7-5
W#2 DoublesWhitney Musgrave / Susan Johnson vs Rachel Smith / Ann Game6-1, 6-2
L#3 DoublesPam Taylor / Karen Copeland vs Luann Scruggs / Susan Moore3-6, 2-6
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 Womens 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 3.04 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.

3.73
Ina Jones
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.41
Jeanette Sasser
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.23
Darlene Worthington
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.03
Whitney Musgrave
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.02
Paige Temple
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.87
Gaye Brinn
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.77
Lisa Thigpen
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.68
Karen Copeland
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.65
Debbie Stephenson
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
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.

Whitney Musgrave + Paige Temple4152% games+3.1% vs expected
Lisa Thigpen + Debbie Stephenson4158% gamesnot enough data
Darlene Worthington + Paige Temple044 matchesnot enough data
Lisa Thigpen + Karen Copeland224 matchesnot enough data
Lisa Thigpen + Paige Temple213 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.

Ina Jones
17W–6L career · 1 line in 2025
5%92%3%
3.73
Jeanette Sasser
12W–4L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%74%26%
3.41
3.5
Darlene Worthington
23W–14L career · 1 line in 2025
5%92%3%
3.23
Whitney Musgrave
40W–23L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%42%58%
3.03
Paige Temple
26W–22L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%43%57%
3.02
Gaye Brinn
3W–7L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%82%17%
2.87
Lisa Thigpen
28W–17L career · 2 lines in 2025
3%92%5%
2.77
Karen Copeland
3W–8L career · 2 lines in 2025
10%89%1%
2.68
3
Debbie Stephenson
16W–14L career · 1 line in 2025
14%85%1%
2.65

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.