Teams

Vickers

2025 Team Singles-DLT · Women 3.5

6 players · average NTRP 3.50 / MISSISSIPPI

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2025-11-20vs AdamsWon 21
W#1 SinglesShelby Ballinger vs Tracy Craddock6-0, 6-1
L#2 SinglesMadalyne Wolfe Johnson vs Brianne DeLoach7-5, 1-6, 0-1
W#3 SinglesHaley Thomas vs Lizzie Powers6-4, 3-6, 1-0
2025-11-18vs Moseley-CCCWon 30
W#1 SinglesMadalyne Wolfe Johnson vs Jenifer Davidson6-3, 6-3
W#2 SinglesLiz Vickers vs Teresa Reed7-5, 6-3
W#3 SinglesShelby Ballinger vs Megan Wicker6-2, 6-0
2025-11-13vs Moseley-CCCWon 30
W#1 SinglesLacy Bruton vs Megan Wicker6-4, 7-6
W#2 SinglesShelby Ballinger vs Lane Purvis6-1, 6-3
W#3 SinglesMadalyne Wolfe Johnson vs Teresa Reed6-3, 6-4
2025-11-04vs Moseley-CCCWon 21
W#1 SinglesLiz Vickers vs Lane Purvis6-1, 4-6, 1-0
W#2 SinglesAmanda Azlin vs Brooke Tims6-1, 6-4
L#3 SinglesLacy Bruton vs Teresa Reed3-6, 3-6
2025-10-30vs AdamsWon 30
W#1 SinglesAmanda Azlin vs Susan Adams6-3, 6-4
W#2 SinglesMadalyne Wolfe Johnson vs Michie Cotton6-2, 5-7, 1-0
W#3 SinglesLiz Vickers vs Lizzie Powers3-6, 6-3, 1-0
2025-10-16vs AdamsLost 12
L#1 SinglesLiz Vickers vs Susan Adams6-7, 3-6
W#2 SinglesShelby Ballinger vs Brianne DeLoach6-0, 6-2
L#3 SinglesHaley Thomas vs Meredith Etheridge3-6, 7-5, 0-1
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 Women 3.5 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 2.95 estimated across 4 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.

3.21
Amanda Azlin
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 50% · published 3.5
2.98
Madalyne Wolfe Johnson
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #3 Singles 25% · published
2.83
Shelby Ballinger
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #1 Singles 25% · published
2.80
Liz Vickers
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #3 Singles 25% · published
Haley Thomas
usually #3 Singles 100% · published
Lacy Bruton
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #3 Singles 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.

Madalyne Wolfe Johnson + Shelby Ballinger404 matchesnot enough data
Amanda Azlin + Shelby Ballinger404 matchesnot enough data
Shelby Ballinger + Haley Thomas303 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.

3.5
Amanda Azlin
58W–10L career · 2 lines in 2025
7%91%2%
3.21
Madalyne Wolfe Johnson
14W–5L career · 4 lines in 2025
57%43%<1%
2.98
Shelby Ballinger
50W–5L career · 4 lines in 2025
0%1%99%
2.83
Liz Vickers
23W–28L career · 4 lines in 2025
0%2%98%
2.80
Haley Thomas
10W–10L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Lacy Bruton
4W–1L 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.