Teams

Donna's Team

2025 B · CS Adult 18 & Over League

10 players · average NTRP 3.75 / TEXAS

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2025-07-24vs "Shay"nanigansWon 10
W#3 DoublesNatalie Kidd / Cherry Jackson vs Ashley Doss / Heather Novicke6-4, 3-6, 1-0
2025-07-17Lost 01
L#2 DoublesKatrina Jackson / Natalie Kidd vs Kerri Cawley / Patricia Davis3-6, 2-6
2025-06-26Lost 02
L#2 DoublesLori Brown / Katrina Jackson vs Kristina Walters / Candy Lischka1-6, 6-4, 0-1
L#3 DoublesCherry Jackson / Stacey Stuhrenberg vs Roxie Johnson / Heather Novicke4-6, 5-7
2025-06-19Lost 02
L#2 DoublesCherry Jackson / Donna Miller vs Kerri Cawley / Patricia Davis2-6, 4-6
L#3 DoublesKatrina Jackson / Lindsay Greening vs Kristina Walters / Heather Novicke3-6, 7-6, 0-1
2025-06-12Won 10
W#3 DoublesChelsie Breaux / Katrina Jackson vs Heather Novicke / Candy Lischka4-6, 6-2, 1-0
2025-06-05vs "Shay"nanigansLost 01
L#2 DoublesDonna Miller / Cherry Jackson vs Kerri Cawley / Ashley Doss6-2, 4-6, 0-1
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 CS Adult 18 & Over League 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 3.59 estimated across 1 rated player. 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.

Amanda Stephenson
usually #1 Doubles 88%, also #2 Doubles 13% · published 4
Chelsie Breaux
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 17% · published 4
3.59
Donna Miller
usually #2 Doubles 70%, also #1 Doubles 20% · published 3.5
Cherry Jackson
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
Katrina Jackson
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
Lindsay Greening
usually #3 Doubles 46%, also #1 Doubles 36% · published
Lori Brown
usually #1 Doubles 40%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published
Natalie Kidd
usually #2 Doubles 53%, also #3 Doubles 29% · published
Sherry Bonds
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Stacey Stuhrenberg
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 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.

Natalie Kidd + Donna Miller3255% gamesnot 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.

4
Amanda Stephenson
9W–2L career · 8 lines in 2025
not enough data
4
Chelsie Breaux
13W–8L career · 18 lines in 2025
not enough data
3.5
Donna Miller
18W–13L career · 10 lines in 2025
<1%24%76%
3.59
3.5
Cherry Jackson
1W–7L career · 4 lines in 2025
not enough data
Katrina Jackson
1W–3L career · 4 lines in 2025
not enough data
Lindsay Greening
6W–5L career · 11 lines in 2025
not enough data
Lori Brown
20W–7L career · 15 lines in 2025
not enough data
Natalie Kidd
7W–16L career · 17 lines in 2025
not enough data
Sherry Bonds
13W–11L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Stacey Stuhrenberg
2W–20L career · 8 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.