Teams

Lambert -NC - Southaven

2026 Adult 18&Over-NC · Women 2.5

7 players · average NTRP 2.50 / 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 →
Schedule6 played
2026-05-02vs Maxey- NC- OxfordWon 21
W#1 DoublesMary Dye / Katie Gobbell vs Ann Granville Maxey / Kinley Goodson5-7, 6-3, 1-0
L#1 SinglesCody Lambert vs Emma Gaines0-6, 0-6
W#2 DoublesPeyton Corbin / Rhonda Chapman vs Shelby Terrell / Caroline Shaffett6-4, 7-5
2026-04-23vs Paxton/SmithWon 20
W#1 DoublesPeyton Corbin / Presley Casto vs Kristen Lancaster / Mary Gates Heidelberg6-4, 6-0
W#2 DoublesAbbey McCrary / Rhonda Chapman vs Danielle Paxton / Ashley Ausburn6-1, 2-6, 1-0
2026-04-09vs Doyle - NC - SouthavenLost 03
L#1 DoublesKatie Gobbell / Mary Dye vs Lisa Wingo / Loretta McKim2-6, 3-6
L#1 SinglesPresley Casto vs Michelle Corbin0-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesHeather Williams / Peyton Corbin vs Jennifer Doyle / Sonja Dickey6-7, 1-6
2026-03-28vs Maxey- NC- OxfordLost 02
L#1 DoublesCody Lambert / Robin Henderson vs Emma Gaines / Ashley Cox3-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesPresley Casto / Rhonda Chapman vs Ann Granville Maxey / Anna Porter0-6, 4-6
2026-03-17vs Doyle - NC - SouthavenLost 03
L#1 DoublesKatie Gobbell / Peyton Corbin vs Lisa Wingo / Loretta McKim3-6, 3-6
L#1 SinglesMary Dye vs Kim Yount2-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesCody Lambert / Abbey McCrary vs Jennifer Doyle / Kimberly Tarsi2-6, 3-6
2026-03-03vs Paxton/SmithSplit 11
L#1 DoublesCody Lambert / Katie Gobbell vs Madison Cleveland / Lauren Downs0-6, 7-5, 0-1
W#1 SinglesPeyton Corbin vs Connie Clarkson6-0, 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 Women 2.5 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 2.27 estimated across 6 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.

2.63
Peyton Corbin
usually #1 Doubles 40%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published
2.27
Rhonda Chapman
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.27
Katie Gobbell
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Abbey McCrary
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
2.16
Presley Casto
usually #1 Doubles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
2.15
Cody Lambert
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 25% · published 2.5
2.14
Mary Dye
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #1 Singles 33% · 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.

Peyton Corbin
18W–2L career · 5 lines in 2026
0%17%83%
2.63
Rhonda Chapman
3W–2L career · 3 lines in 2026
0%95%5%
2.27
Katie Gobbell
9W–10L career · 4 lines in 2026
0%95%5%
2.27
2.5
Abbey McCrary
1W–1L career · type S · 2 lines in 2026
not enough data
Presley Casto
2W–5L career · 3 lines in 2026
0%99%1%
2.16
2.5
Cody Lambert
5W–9L career · type S · 4 lines in 2026
0%99%1%
2.15
Mary Dye
6W–12L career · 3 lines in 2026
0%99%1%
2.14

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.