Teams

Martin/Chattanooga

2026 Adult 55 & Over-Chattanooga · 3.0 women

8 players · average NTRP 3.00 / TENNESSEE

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2026-05-09vs Long-Hardin-Miller/ChattanoogaLost 12
L#1 DoublesDeAnn Rauth / Mary Neely vs Dominique Muhlada / Mary Miller5-7, 4-6
W#2 DoublesJana Watters / Theresa Jones vs Paula Reagan / Bernadette Dorris6-4, 0-6, 1-0
L#3 DoublesKari Martin / Karen Petty vs Diane Hardin / Beth Bourgeois6-7, 4-6
2026-05-02vs Long-Hardin-Miller/ChattanoogaSplit 11
W#1 DoublesKay Henderson / Leanne Morrow vs Beth Bourgeois / Diane Hardin6-3, 6-4
L#3 DoublesLanette Young / Karen Petty vs Bernadette Dorris / Carole Miller4-6, 1-6
2026-04-12vs Long-Hardin-Miller/ChattanoogaWon 10
W#1 DoublesMary Neely / Kristi Johnson vs Beth Bourgeois / Dominique Muhlada6-3, 6-3
2026-03-28vs Long-Hardin-Miller/ChattanoogaLost 03
L#1 DoublesMary Neely / Andrea Krech vs Dominique Muhlada / Eileen Long6-3, 1-6, 0-1
L#2 DoublesDeAnn Rauth / Leanne Morrow vs Janet Lawrence / Mary Miller4-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesJana Watters / Kari Martin vs Diane Hardin / Paula Reagan3-6, 6-4, 1-0
2026-03-22vs Long-Hardin-Miller/ChattanoogaLost 12
W#1 DoublesMary Neely / Lanette Young vs Beth Bourgeois / Diane Hardin6-1, 6-2
L#2 DoublesAndrea Krech / Karen Petty vs Janet Lawrence / Carole Miller6-7, 2-6
L#3 DoublesKay Henderson / Kari Martin vs Mary Miller / Dominique Muhlada2-6, 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 standings2 teams · 3.0 women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Long-Hardin-Miller/Chattanooga5011411118
2Martin/Chattanooga0541123156

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 2.77 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.

2.93
Lanette Young
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
2.93
Mary Neely
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.90
Kay Henderson
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
2.74
DeAnn Rauth
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3
2.67
Leanne Morrow
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
2.66
Andrea Krech
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3
2.54
Karen Petty
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
Jana Watters
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · 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.

DeAnn Rauth + Jana Watters123 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.

Lanette Young
4W–4L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%70%30%
2.93
Mary Neely
4W–5L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%71%29%
2.93
Kay Henderson
49W–40L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%77%23%
2.90
3
DeAnn Rauth
13W–28L career · 2 lines in 2026
3%94%2%
2.74
Leanne Morrow
3W–10L career · 2 lines in 2026
10%90%1%
2.67
3
Andrea Krech
0W–3L career · type S · 2 lines in 2026
11%89%<1%
2.66
Karen Petty
2W–7L career · 3 lines in 2026
38%62%<1%
2.54
Jana Watters
3W–9L career · 2 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.