Teams

High Point/Neal-Jenkins W4.0F

2026 DALLAS TENNIS N · A 18 & Over ADULT Fall W. Friday

16 players · average NTRP 3.88 / TEXAS

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
2025-10-17vs Oak Creek/Jackson-Trousil W4.0FLost 02
L#1 DoublesKim Osborne / Christine Keith vs Lynda Butcher / Julie Warner6-4, 3-6, 0-1
L#2 DoublesLiz Burkhart / Claudia Villegas vs Jessica Melker / Rhonda Price1-6, 6-2, 0-1
2025-10-10Split 11
W#1 DoublesDeborah Becker / Stefanie Wacker vs Michele Beach / Holly Lewis6-4, 6-4
L#2 DoublesClaudia Villegas / Stephanie Whitaker vs Jill McGill / Trisha Grimsley7-6, 2-6, 0-1
2025-10-03vs The Nelson/Wood W4.0FSplit 11
L#1 DoublesDeborah Becker / Martha Davis vs Laurie Spicer / August Wood4-6, 6-2, 0-1
W#2 DoublesChristine Keith / Claudia Villegas vs Blaine Eschenburg / Denelle Alexander6-3, 6-3
2025-09-26vs Gleneagles/Wright-Shukis W4.0FSplit 11
L#1 DoublesDeborah Becker / Stephanie Whitaker vs Nina Konstans / Karen Huffman6-3, 2-6, 0-1
W#2 DoublesHolly Murphy / Kelly Britson vs Jill Feiler / Sadie MCGOODWIN6-4, 6-2
2025-09-19vs Greenhill/Newberg-Schonwald W4.0FWon 10
W#2 DoublesClaudia Villegas / Stephanie Whitaker vs Elizabeth Chao / Kathryn Idoux6-3, 7-6
2025-09-12vs McKinney/Jacobs-Chapman W4.0FSplit 11
L#1 DoublesRebecca Neal / Claudia Villegas vs Holly Carraway / Theresa Lane3-6, 3-6
W#2 DoublesDeborah Becker / Hope Heldmar vs Katheryn Ross / Sarah Haskins6-4, 6-3
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 standings14 teams · A 18 & Over ADULT Fall W. Friday
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Greenhill/Newberg-Schonwald W4.0F61181028219
2Greenhill/Nevelow W4.0F5116816185
3High Point/Soldan W4.0F4215921215
4SMU/Park W4.0F42121228226
5Jack Coleman/Smith-Bradley W4.0F42111329215
6DAC/Fellman W4.0F43181025237
7McKinney/Jacobs-Chapman W4.0F43151329247
8The Lakes TA/Buckalew-Criswell W4.0F33101430210
9Gleneagles/Wright-Shukis W4.0F34151330248
10Stonebriar CC/Woodson W4.0F2491532238
11High Point/Neal-Jenkins W4.0F2591939281
12DCC/Chilian W4.0F1571735245
13North Texas RC/Ross-Weber W4.0F1571735252
14Rockwall GAC/Hill W4.0F0671740265

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 3.51 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.

3.79
Li Su
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
3.75
Christine Keith
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.75
Hope Heldmar
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.69
Deborah Becker
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 4
3.63
Claudia Villegas
usually #2 Doubles 80%, also #1 Doubles 20% · published 4
3.62
Stefanie Wacker
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.56
Tao Kang
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.34
Kelly Britson
usually #1 Doubles 58%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
3.24
Aundi Henderson
usually #3 Doubles 44%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.17
Martha Sue Crowther
usually #1 Doubles 57%, also #1 Singles 43% · published
3.05
Liz Burkhart
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
Eileen Kendall
published
Holly Murphy
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Jacqueline Jenkins
published
Rebecca Neal
usually #1 Doubles 40%, also #3 Doubles 40% · published
Stephanie Whitaker
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · 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.

Claudia Villegas + Stephanie Whitaker314 matchesnot enough data
Claudia Villegas + Rebecca Neal213 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.

Li Su
10W–12L career · 6 lines in 2026
2%91%7%
3.79
4
Christine Keith
18W–11L career · 2 lines in 2026
4%93%3%
3.75
Hope Heldmar
20W–15L career · 3 lines in 2026
4%93%3%
3.75
4
Deborah Becker
14W–8L career · 4 lines in 2026
9%90%1%
3.69
4
Claudia Villegas
13W–7L career · 5 lines in 2026
18%81%<1%
3.63
Stefanie Wacker
3W–5L career · 1 line in 2026
19%81%<1%
3.62
Tao Kang
26W–18L career · 6 lines in 2026
<1%35%65%
3.56
Kelly Britson
37W–26L career · 12 lines in 2026
1%87%13%
3.34
3.5
Aundi Henderson
24W–22L career · 9 lines in 2026
4%92%3%
3.24
Martha Sue Crowther
10W–14L career · 7 lines in 2026
11%88%1%
3.17
Liz Burkhart
5W–13L career · 6 lines in 2026
36%64%<1%
3.05
Eileen Kendall
0W–3L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Holly Murphy
3W–2L career · 1 line in 2026
not enough data
Jacqueline Jenkins
0W–2L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Rebecca Neal
9W–7L career · 5 lines in 2026
not enough data
Stephanie Whitaker
6W–2L career · 3 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.