Teams

Hollis/Murfreesboro

2025 Adult 55 & Over - Murfreesboro · 4.0 Women

11 players · average NTRP 4.00 / TENNESSEE

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2025-03-29vs Walker/Crenshaw/MurfreesboroSplit 11
W#1 DoublesKaren Adams / Celia Turner vs Debbi Booton / Jane Crenshaw6-1, 6-4
L#2 DoublesVicki Archer / Regina Nutter vs Kimberly Garner / Melanie Mohr6-4, 4-6, 0-1
2025-03-23vs Walker/Crenshaw/MurfreesboroLost 03
L#1 DoublesKathy Anderson / Marie Hope Kirkland vs Julie Shaub / Joni Covington0-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesJeanie Barrier / Dana Griscom vs Stacey Andrews / Tonya Morris3-6, 2-6
L#3 DoublesCelia Turner / Lisa Wallace vs Debbi Booton / Sally Wrather3-6, 6-7
2025-03-15vs Walker/Crenshaw/MurfreesboroLost 12
W#1 DoublesKathryn Harlan / Conde Devine vs Stacey Andrews / Tonya Morris6-4, 6-2
L#2 DoublesNita Hollis / Regina Nutter vs Kimberly Garner / Melanie Mohr0-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesKelly Rowe / Marie Hope Kirkland vs Barbara Grubbs / Debbi Booton1-6, 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 standings for 4.0 Women 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 3.56 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.

3.89
Lisa Wallace
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.78
Celia Turner
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.73
Regina Nutter
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.73
Vicki Archer
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.62
Conde Devine
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.56
Dana Griscom
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.56
Kelly Rowe
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.49
Jeanie Barrier
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.43
Marie Hope Kirkland
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.23
Karen Adams
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.13
Nita Hollis
usually #2 Doubles 100% · 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.

Celia Turner + Lisa Wallace4258% games+5.9% vs expected
Dana Griscom + Jeanie Barrier3449% games+3.4% vs expected
Marie Hope Kirkland + Vicki Archer4547% games−5.4% vs expected
Celia Turner + Karen Adams123 matchesnot enough data
Marie Hope Kirkland + Nita Hollis033 matchesnot enough data
Nita Hollis + Vicki Archer303 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.

Lisa Wallace
20W–6L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%78%22%
3.89
4
Celia Turner
17W–18L career · 2 lines in 2025
2%92%5%
3.78
Regina Nutter
4W–5L career · 2 lines in 2025
5%92%3%
3.73
Vicki Archer
12W–13L career · 1 line in 2025
5%92%3%
3.73
4
Conde Devine
3W–7L career · 1 line in 2025
20%80%<1%
3.62
4
Dana Griscom
6W–9L career · 1 line in 2025
33%67%<1%
3.56
Kelly Rowe
2W–5L career · 1 line in 2025
34%66%<1%
3.56
Jeanie Barrier
6W–8L career · 1 line in 2025
52%48%<1%
3.49
Marie Hope Kirkland
10W–19L career · 2 lines in 2025
68%32%<1%
3.43
Karen Adams
7W–10L career · 1 line in 2025
97%3%<1%
3.23
Nita Hollis
19W–13L career · 1 line in 2025
17%82%<1%
3.13

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.