Teams

Dixon

2024 · 2025 NOGTA USTA Adult 40 & Over - Fall

10 players · average NTRP 3.75 / GEORGIA

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2024-11-11vs JoyceLost 01
L#2 DoublesAngie Paulson / Susan Crum vs Laura Ketcham / Beverly Geismar4-6, 2-6
2024-11-04vs JoyceLost 01
L#2 DoublesAngie Paulson / Susan Crum vs Julie Briggs / Beverly Geismar3-6, 6-4, 1-0
2024-10-28Lost 01
L#1 DoublesJan Hair / Rekha Geethadevi vs Joni Wolfe / Kennisha Cann4-6, 1-6
2024-10-21Lost 02
L#2 DoublesJenni Johnson / Jan Hair vs Lawanna Chang / Julie Briggs6-7, 3-6
L#3 DoublesHeather Tuttle / Angie Paulson vs Carmon Hipp / Laurie Brown2-6, 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 2025 NOGTA USTA Adult 40 & 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 3.29 estimated across 7 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.

Angie Paulson
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.40
Rekha Geethadevi
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
3.36
Carol Tigar
usually #1 Doubles 43%, also #2 Doubles 29% · published 3.5
3.31
Jenni Johnson
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published
3.28
Tara McFarlane
usually #1 Singles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.24
Heather Tuttle
usually #2 Doubles 57%, also #1 Doubles 29% · published
3.23
Jan Hair
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.20
Linda Im
published
Elizabeth Morgan
published
Mary Jane Dominick
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · 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.

Jenni Johnson + Rekha Geethadevi5453% games+7.1% vs expected
Angie Paulson + Heather Tuttle044 matchesnot enough data
Rekha Geethadevi + Heather Tuttle224 matchesnot enough data
Jenni Johnson + Heather Tuttle123 matchesnot enough data
Rekha Geethadevi + Tara McFarlane033 matchesnot enough data
Tara McFarlane + Heather Tuttle033 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
Angie Paulson
0W–13L career · 3 lines in 2025
not enough data
Rekha Geethadevi
17W–29L career · 4 lines in 2025
77%23%<1%
3.40
3.5
Carol Tigar
37W–18L career · 7 lines in 2025
1%84%15%
3.36
Jenni Johnson
20W–35L career · 4 lines in 2025
91%9%<1%
3.31
Tara McFarlane
47W–66L career · 3 lines in 2025
2%92%6%
3.28
Heather Tuttle
35W–62L career · 7 lines in 2025
<1%4%96%
3.24
Jan Hair
2W–9L career · 2 lines in 2025
97%3%<1%
3.23
Linda Im
2W–3L career · no lines in 2025
98%2%<1%
3.20
Elizabeth Morgan
5W–3L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Mary Jane Dominick
1W–6L career · 2 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.