Teams

Cr.Smith18A

2025 Capital Adult 18 & Over · 3.5 Women

12 players · average NTRP 3.31 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2025-04-15vs Me.George18ALost 01
L#2 DoublesMandi Chappell / Sarah Maynard vs Jaime Clark / Joan Faulkner1-6, 5-7
2025-04-14vs Je.Dysart18AWon 10
W#3 DoublesElizabeth Easley / Emy Hanson vs Cristina Ennis / Adria McGlamery6-3, 7-5
2025-03-11vs An.Jones18ASplit 11
W#1 SinglesCatie Cunningham vs Vanese Clough4-6, 6-2, 1-0
L#3 DoublesAmanda Dawson / Mandi Chappell vs Byerly Graves / Lisa Fultz3-6, 6-4, 0-1
2025-03-04vs El.Merritt18ALost 01
L#3 DoublesAmanda Dawson / Mandi Chappell vs Elizabeth Merritt / Alison Uthe4-6, 4-6
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 3.5 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 3.08 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.

3.32
Elizabeth Easley
published
3.29
Brooke Abee
published 3.5
3.28
3.24
Anna Kouba
published 3.5
3.18
Crystal Smith
published 3.5
3.09
Stacy Thiedeman
published
3.04
Catie Cunningham
usually #1 Singles 57%, also #2 Singles 29% · published 3.5
3.04
Stephanie Simpson
published
2.96
Emy Hanson
usually #1 Singles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.81
Mandi Chappell
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.67
Charlotte Kopp
published 3
Rebecca Geiger
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.

Anna Kouba + Elizabeth Easley224 matchesnot enough data
Stephanie Simpson + Charlotte Kopp123 matchesnot enough data
Mandi Chappell + Emy Hanson213 matchesnot enough data
Crystal Smith + Elizabeth Easley213 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.

Elizabeth Easley
9W–6L career · no lines in 2025
1%89%10%
3.32
3.5
Brooke Abee
3W–3L career · no lines in 2025
2%91%7%
3.29
3.5
Anne Elizabeth Harrell
8W–10L career · no lines in 2025
2%92%6%
3.28
3.5
Anna Kouba
9W–8L career · no lines in 2025
4%93%3%
3.24
3.5
Crystal Smith
7W–11L career · no lines in 2025
10%89%1%
3.18
Stacy Thiedeman
2W–5L career · no lines in 2025
26%74%<1%
3.09
3.5
Catie Cunningham
98W–63L career · type A · 7 lines in 2025
39%61%<1%
3.04
Stephanie Simpson
3W–4L career · no lines in 2025
40%60%<1%
3.04
3
Emy Hanson
65W–50L career · 6 lines in 2025
<1%61%39%
2.96
3
Mandi Chappell
65W–63L career · 3 lines in 2025
1%90%8%
2.81
3
Charlotte Kopp
3W–12L career · no lines in 2025
12%88%1%
2.67
Rebecca Geiger
0W–2L career · no 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.