Teams

Ensell/Memphis

2025 Mixed 40 & Over - Memphis · 3.0 Mixed 40 & Over

12 players · average NTRP 3.00 / TENNESSEE

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2025-07-26vs Akers/MemphisWon 30
W#1 DoublesAmasa Lacy / Matthew Beickert vs Xiaoqun Akers / Junwang Xu6-2, 6-3
W#2 DoublesWENDY Vines / Rollin Riggs vs Christine Mendoza / Michael Wittke6-1, 6-0
W#3 DoublesDeepa Nair / James Ensell vs Salina Xu / Wei Li6-2, 6-4
2025-06-14vs Akers/MemphisLost 12
W#1 DoublesMorgan Pippen / Alex Jankov vs Christine Mendoza / Wei Li6-1, 6-4
L#2 DoublesAmasa Lacy / John Castany vs Ping Zhou / Xiangxia Liu2-6, 4-6
L#3 DoublesDeepa Nair / Matthew Beickert vs Ellen Vannucci / Alan Moore6-7, 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 3.0 Mixed 40 & Over 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 2.82 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.

3.01
James Ensell
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.96
Nancy Rose
published
2.91
Jennifer Sigan
published
2.90
Alex Jankov
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.90
John Castany
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.87
Morgan Pippen
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.85
Amasa Lacy
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3
2.83
Rollin Riggs
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.75
Deepa Nair
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.72
Matthew Beickert
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
2.67
Stuart Breakstone
published
2.42
WENDY Vines
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.

WENDY Vines + Rollin Riggs5256% games+16.7% 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.

James Ensell
32W–4L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%48%52%
3.01
Nancy Rose
22W–9L career · no lines in 2025
<1%61%39%
2.96
Jennifer Sigan
19W–17L career · no lines in 2025
<1%74%26%
2.91
3
Alex Jankov
7W–8L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%76%24%
2.90
John Castany
11W–13L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%76%24%
2.90
Morgan Pippen
15W–16L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%82%18%
2.87
3
Amasa Lacy
29W–32L career · 2 lines in 2025
1%85%14%
2.85
Rollin Riggs
15W–17L career · 1 line in 2025
1%88%11%
2.83
3
Deepa Nair
22W–16L career · 2 lines in 2025
4%93%4%
2.75
Matthew Beickert
7W–14L career · 2 lines in 2025
6%92%2%
2.72
Stuart Breakstone
9W–18L career · no lines in 2025
11%88%1%
2.67
WENDY Vines
29W–44L career · 1 line in 2025
0%72%28%
2.42

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.