Teams

Stephens/Nashville

2025 Adult 18 & Over - Early Start League-Nashville · 3.0 Women - Monday AM

12 players · average NTRP 3.00 / TENNESSEE

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2024-12-04vs Korenberg/Ramsey/NashvilleWon 10
W#2 DoublesCara Adams / Laura Slaughter vs Dawn Cole / Myrvete Korenberg3-6, 7-5, 1-0
2024-11-18vs Protz/Kim/NashvilleLost 23
L#1 DoublesAmelia Stephens / Natalie Geng vs Stephanie Protz / Sherri Givens3-6, 3-6
W#1 SinglesStephanie Hill vs Ashwini Kashelikar7-5, 6-2
L#2 DoublesMadeline Long / Barbara Zwerner vs Patricia Frawley / Kelly Kirby-Piovarcy4-6, 6-7
L#2 SinglesCara Adams vs Clair Bartholomew1-6, 3-6
W#3 DoublesJill Labetti / Sarah Corbin vs Laurel Dortch / Elizabeth Stanley6-4, 3-6, 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 3.0 Women - Monday AM 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 2.89 estimated across 11 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.

3.20
Stephanie Hill
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
3.00
Jennifer Gilkey
published
2.94
Katie Laughinghouse
published
2.92
Becky Sengvilay
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.92
Natalie Geng
usually #1 Singles 57%, also #1 Doubles 29% · published
2.89
Barbara Zwerner
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.86
Monica Kenny
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #1 Singles 20% · published
2.86
Amelia Stephens
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.80
Jill Labetti
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 17% · published
2.74
Cara Adams
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #2 Singles 50% · published 3
2.63
Anne Ammons
usually #1 Doubles 71%, also #2 Doubles 14% · published 3
Madeline Long
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #1 Doubles 33% · 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.

Amelia Stephens + Stephanie Hill3353% games+9.8% vs expected
Anne Ammons + Monica Kenny10262% games+9.2% vs expected
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.

Stephanie Hill
11W–8L career · 1 line in 2025
8%91%2%
3.20
Jennifer Gilkey
9W–8L career · no lines in 2025
<1%50%50%
3.00
Katie Laughinghouse
2W–9L career · no lines in 2025
<1%68%32%
2.94
3
Becky Sengvilay
12W–9L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%72%28%
2.92
Natalie Geng
25W–4L career · 7 lines in 2025
<1%73%27%
2.92
3
Barbara Zwerner
23W–17L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%78%22%
2.89
Monica Kenny
21W–11L career · 5 lines in 2025
<1%83%17%
2.86
3
Amelia Stephens
8W–7L career · 1 line in 2025
1%84%16%
2.86
Jill Labetti
19W–4L career · 6 lines in 2025
2%91%8%
2.80
3
Cara Adams
2W–4L career · 2 lines in 2025
5%92%3%
2.74
3
Anne Ammons
15W–9L career · 7 lines in 2025
17%82%<1%
2.63
Madeline Long
2W–5L career · 3 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.