Teams

Parker-Witherspoon/JB/RPCC

2026 Adult 18 & Over Spring 2 League · 3.5 Women

14 players · average NTRP 3.50 / ARKANSAS

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2026-05-05vs Ragsdale/JB/3OaksSplit 22
W#1 DoublesSarah Abbott / Mallory Hurst vs Jordan Powell / Leah Willett6-2, 6-3
L#1 SinglesLorie Whitby vs Morgan Davis-Daniel3-6, 6-3, 0-1
L#2 DoublesChamblee Witherspoon / Jennifer Fancher vs Megan Ragsdale / Lindi Wade2-6, 7-5, 0-1
W#3 DoublesJordan Adams / Frances Anthony vs Catherine Frans / Karysta Sturges6-0, 6-2
2026-04-22vs Gill/JB/3OaksWon 32
W#1 DoublesMollie Vance / Sarah Abbott vs Stephanie Romero / Crys Cook6-4, 6-4
W#1 SinglesAnna Koch vs Hannah Agudelo6-1, 6-2
L#2 DoublesLori Tyson / Chamblee Witherspoon vs Leah Pierce / Ashlee Gill3-6, 6-4, 1-0
W#2 SinglesMallory Hurst vs Kamri Herndon6-2, 7-5
L#3 DoublesAndrea Seeman / Frances Anthony vs Sarah Newbern / Kelsy Markum2-6, 1-6
2026-04-19vs Gill/JB/3OaksWon 41
W#1 DoublesMollie Vance / Sarah Abbott vs Leah Pierce / Ashlee Gill6-2, 6-7, 1-0
W#1 SinglesAnna Koch vs Madison Matthews6-3, 7-5
W#2 DoublesLori Tyson / Andrea Seeman vs Jamie Smith / Sarah Gifford7-5, 6-2
L#2 SinglesPaige Parnell vs Hannah Agudelo5-7, 2-6
W#3 DoublesHeather Holt / Jordan Adams vs Susan Hart / Crys Cook7-6, 2-6, 1-0
2026-04-09vs McGee/JB/3OaksWon 41
L#1 DoublesLori Tyson / Jennifer Fancher vs Emily Harris / Sarah Milton4-6, 6-0, 0-1
W#1 SinglesAnna Koch vs Paige Cox6-2, 6-2
W#2 DoublesLorie Whitby / Jordan Adams vs Maggie Barnes / Elizabeth Cox6-3, 6-3
W#2 SinglesMallory Hurst vs Meghan Scott6-0, 6-2
W#3 DoublesBrooke Burris / Kelly Dionne Moody Parker vs Rachael Rodery / Ella Bradsher6-0, 7-5
2026-03-18vs Ragsdale/JB/3OaksWon 31
W#1 DoublesMollie Vance / Sarah Abbott vs Cherry Dallas / Wendy Evins6-1, 4-6, 1-0
W#1 SinglesAnna Koch vs Morgan Davis-Daniel6-2, 6-4
W#2 DoublesLori Tyson / Sara Gay vs Lauren McClain / Jordan Powell6-2, 6-0
L#3 DoublesBrooke Burris / Lorie Whitby vs Evan Moore / Megan Ragsdale2-6, 1-6
2026-03-12vs McGee/JB/3OaksWon 31
W#1 DoublesLori Tyson / Sarah Abbott vs Katie Reeves / Meghan Scott6-0, 6-3
W#1 SinglesPaige Parnell vs Maggie Barnes6-2, 6-2
W#2 DoublesMollie Vance / Kelly Dionne Moody Parker vs Rachael Rodery / Hope Higginbotham6-1, 6-0
L#3 DoublesChamblee Witherspoon / Frances Anthony vs Elizabeth Cox / Emily Harris3-6, 6-4, 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 standings3 teams · 3.5 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Parker-Witherspoon/JB/RPCC6022819191
2Gill/JB/3Oaks42161434260
3Ragsdale/JB/3Oaks24151535278

Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.

See the full flight, with every team’s record

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 3.22 estimated across 14 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.

3.55
Lori Tyson
usually #2 Doubles 36%, also #1 Doubles 36% · published
3.51
Mollie Vance
usually #1 Doubles 46%, also #4 Doubles 27% · published
3.33
Anna Koch
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 3.5
3.26
Sarah Abbott
usually #1 Doubles 56%, also #3 Doubles 22% · published
3.25
Mallory Hurst
usually #2 Singles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
3.22
Lorie Whitby
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.20
Chamblee Witherspoon
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.18
Sara Gay
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.17
Paige Parnell
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #1 Singles 50% · published
3.15
Brooke Burris
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.15
Andrea Seeman
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.12
Heather Holt
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.01
Frances Anthony
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.94
Kelly Dionne Moody Parker
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 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.

Mollie Vance + Sarah Abbott7066% games+7.7% vs expected
Lori Tyson + Sarah Abbott1543% games+5.5% vs expected
Lorie Whitby + Brooke Burris224 matchesnot enough data
Lori Tyson + Mollie Vance303 matchesnot enough data
Mallory Hurst + Sara Gay303 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.

Lori Tyson
18W–12L career · 11 lines in 2026
<1%36%64%
3.55
Mollie Vance
21W–4L career · 11 lines in 2026
<1%46%54%
3.51
3.5
Anna Koch
12W–3L career · 4 lines in 2026
1%87%12%
3.33
Sarah Abbott
21W–11L career · 9 lines in 2026
3%93%4%
3.26
Mallory Hurst
12W–2L career · 3 lines in 2026
4%93%4%
3.25
Lorie Whitby
15W–20L career · 3 lines in 2026
6%92%2%
3.22
3.5
Chamblee Witherspoon
7W–10L career · 3 lines in 2026
8%91%2%
3.20
Sara Gay
14W–6L career · 1 line in 2026
10%89%1%
3.18
Paige Parnell
9W–2L career · 2 lines in 2026
12%88%1%
3.17
3.5
Brooke Burris
9W–10L career · 2 lines in 2026
14%85%1%
3.15
3.5
Andrea Seeman
8W–12L career · 4 lines in 2026
15%84%1%
3.15
Heather Holt
8W–2L career · 1 line in 2026
19%81%<1%
3.12
Frances Anthony
7W–7L career · 3 lines in 2026
47%53%<1%
3.01
Kelly Dionne Moody Parker
24W–3L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%67%33%
2.94

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.