Teams

Mangum, Emily

2022 Adult 18 & Over-JXN · Women 3.0

7 players · average NTRP 3.00 / MISSISSIPPI

No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.

View scouting list →

Flight standings for Women 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 2.54 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.

Emily Henderson
published 3.5
2.74
Mabel Zevallos
published
2.60
Elizabeth Bailey
published 3
2.50
Teresa Baker
published
2.33
Emily Mangum
published 2.5
Ashton Kight
published
LaNelle Palmer
published
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
Emily Henderson
5W–15L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Mabel Zevallos
9W–22L career · no lines in 2022
3%94%2%
2.74
3
Elizabeth Bailey
15W–37L career · no lines in 2022
23%77%<1%
2.60
Teresa Baker
4W–7L career · no lines in 2022
50%50%<1%
2.50
2.5
Emily Mangum
16W–51L career · no lines in 2022
0%90%10%
2.33
Ashton Kight
1W–1L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
LaNelle Palmer
1W–3L career · no lines in 2022
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.