Teams

Myers-Kibler/JB/3Oaks

2026 Combo 18 & Over 5.5, 7.5, 9.5 · 5.5 Women

11 players · average NTRP 3.00 / ARKANSAS

View scouting list →
Schedule3 upcoming · 2 played
Oct 7 5:30 PM
Three Oaks Racquet Club
Oct 14 7:30 PM
Three Oaks Racquet Club
Oct 21 5:30 PM
Three Oaks Racquet Club
2026-09-09vs Dunham/ Kellums/JB/JCCWon 21
W#1 DoublesBrandee Kyle / Tera Harpole vs Nan Smith / Rachel Milner6-3, 6-1
L#2 DoublesMichelle Myers / Brittany McFadden vs Kara Keith / Alexandra Kosmitis4-6, 2-6
W#3 DoublesMaleigh Inboden / Jamie Chandler vs Alley Bell / Jessica Blackburn7-5, 7-5
2026-08-20vs Roberts/Sandusky/JB/3OaksLost 12
L#1 DoublesLauren Parker / Tamara Lee vs Jenny Box / April Grove2-6, 2-6
W#2 DoublesJamie Chandler / Morgan Lovelace vs Danae Sandusky / Jocelyn Johnson6-3, 4-6, 1-0
L#3 DoublesBrittany McFadden / Tera Harpole vs Linda Smith / Brandy Johnston4-6, 3-6
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 standings6 teams · 5.5 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Roberts/Sandusky/JB/3Oaks1021222
2McGee/JB/3Oaks000000
3Hydrick/Winters/JB/3Oaks000000
4Dunham/ Kellums/JB/JCC000000
5Wildy/JB/APCC000000
6Myers-Kibler/JB/3Oaks0112533

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 2.60 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.

2.96
Brandee Kyle
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.75
Tamara Lee
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.75
Jamie Chandler
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3
2.69
Mallory Kibler
published
2.60
Maleigh Inboden
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.59
Brittany McFadden
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3
2.45
Danial Reed
published 3
2.42
Tera Harpole
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
2.21
Morgan Lovelace
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Lauren Parker
published
Michelle Myers
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.

Brittany McFadden + Jamie Chandler123 matchesnot enough data
Jamie Chandler + Mallory Kibler303 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
Brandee Kyle
11W–4L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%61%39%
2.96
Tamara Lee
22W–25L career · 1 line in 2026
0%3%97%
2.75
3
Jamie Chandler
41W–16L career · 2 lines in 2026
3%95%2%
2.75
Mallory Kibler
13W–5L career · no lines in 2026
7%92%1%
2.69
Maleigh Inboden
36W–8L career · 1 line in 2026
0%23%77%
2.60
3
Brittany McFadden
15W–9L career · 2 lines in 2026
24%75%<1%
2.59
3
Danial Reed
12W–18L career · no lines in 2026
66%34%<1%
2.45
Tera Harpole
27W–28L career · 2 lines in 2026
0%73%27%
2.42
Morgan Lovelace
19W–18L career · 1 line in 2026
0%99%1%
2.21
Lauren Parker
4W–5L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Michelle Myers
2W–7L career · no lines in 2026
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.