Teams

GCC-Pons/Smith (18s 3.0/3.5/4.0)

2026 Tri Level 18 and Above · Womens 3.0

9 players · average NTRP 3.70 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
W#1 DoublesCassidy Johnson / Kerry Smith vs Lauren Turbeville / Samantha Taylor Haislip6-2, 3-6, 1-0
L#2 DoublesBeth Hopkins / Monica Carlson vs Megan Parker / Ashley Elise0-6, 4-6
W#3 DoublesNicole Carlyle / Mary-Marshall Greene vs Lauren Horton / Mary Hardison6-3, 7-5
W#2 DoublesKerry Smith / Cassidy Johnson vs Abbey Strickland / Ashley Elise6-1, 6-3
L#3 DoublesNicole Carlyle / Mary-Marshall Greene vs Abbey Dail / Mary Hardison6-3, 3-6, 0-1
L#1 DoublesJamie Harford / Cassidy Johnson vs Jill Davis / Brooke Brann5-7, 6-1, 0-1
L#2 DoublesMonica Carlson / Diane Pons vs Megan Parker / Abbey Strickland6-4, 4-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesJennifer Hall / Mary-Marshall Greene vs Lauren Horton / Abbey Dail1-6, 6-7
W#1 DoublesEleanor Kipp / Cassidy Johnson vs Brooke Brann / Lauren Turbeville6-2, 6-3
W#2 DoublesMonica Carlson / Beth Hopkins vs Megan Parker / Ashley Elise6-7, 6-3, 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 standings for Womens 3.0 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 3.46 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.

3.92
Eleanor Kipp
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.75
Jamie Harford
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.71
Monica Carlson
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.63
Cassidy Johnson
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.42
Diane Pons
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
Beth Hopkins
published 3.5
3.01
Mary-Marshall Greene
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.78
Nicole Carlyle
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Margaret Turner
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.

Diane Pons + Monica Carlson5263% games+21.8% vs expected
Cassidy Johnson + Monica Carlson7077% games+4.5% vs expected
Nicole Carlyle + Mary-Marshall Greene224 matchesnot enough data
Eleanor Kipp + Monica Carlson303 matchesnot enough data
Monica Carlson + Mary-Marshall Greene303 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
Eleanor Kipp
19W–4L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%72%28%
3.92
4
Jamie Harford
6W–5L career · 1 line in 2026
3%95%3%
3.75
Monica Carlson
82W–25L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%6%94%
3.71
3.5
Cassidy Johnson
31W–5L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%17%83%
3.63
3.5
Diane Pons
43W–28L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%73%27%
3.42
3.5
Beth Hopkins
0W–1L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Mary-Marshall Greene
40W–22L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%48%52%
3.01
Nicole Carlyle
32W–22L career · 2 lines in 2026
2%94%4%
2.78
Margaret Turner
7W–1L 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.