Teams

Padgett/40/4.5-3.5/TRI/OCC

2025 LAF Tri Level 40 & Over - Women Day · 4.5,4.0,3.5 Laf (40&O) Women Day

7 players · average NTRP 4.25 / LOUISIANA

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 →
Schedule3 played
2025-08-03vs Payton/40+/4.5-3.5/Tri/BeaverLost 12
L#1 DoublesMelissa Padgett / Ana Denison vs Amanda Latiolais / Christine Payton6-1, 4-6, 0-1
L#2 DoublesJackie Heinen / Carrie Kuehn vs Catherine Luc / Sonia Taylor4-6, 5-7
W#3 DoublesStephannie Tanner / Erika Carlisle vs Lacey Moncla / Jana Doughty6-4, 6-3
2025-07-27vs Payton/40+/4.5-3.5/Tri/BeaverLost 12
L#1 DoublesMelissa Padgett / Ana Denison vs Christi Brignac / Christine Payton2-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesCarrie Kuehn / Jackie Heinen vs Holly Hagle / Sonia Taylor4-6, 6-2, 0-1
W#3 DoublesErika Carlisle / Vickie Anderson vs Jodee Broussard / Lacey Moncla1-6, 6-2, 1-0
2025-07-20vs Payton/40+/4.5-3.5/Tri/BeaverWon 21
W#1 DoublesMelissa Padgett / Ana Denison vs Vallery Albritton / Suellyn Charbonnet6-7, 6-4, 1-0
W#2 DoublesJackie Heinen / Carrie Kuehn vs Diana Taylor / Lisa James6-0, 6-3
L#3 DoublesStephannie Tanner / Erika Carlisle vs Sara Trawick / Christin Barrios0-6, 6-4, 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 4.5,4.0,3.5 Laf (40&O) Women Day 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 3.65 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.

4.17
Ana Denison
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
3.89
Melissa Padgett
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.82
Carrie Kuehn
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.75
Jackie Heinen
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.45
Stephannie Tanner
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.41
Erika Carlisle
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.08
Vickie Anderson
usually #3 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.

Ana Denison + Melissa Padgett6361% games+6.0% vs expected
Erika Carlisle + Stephannie Tanner3551% games+2.4% vs expected
Erika Carlisle + Vickie Anderson3349% games+2.1% vs expected
Jackie Heinen + Carrie Kuehn4257% 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.

4.5
Ana Denison
23W–7L career · 3 lines in 2025
12%87%1%
4.17
Melissa Padgett
24W–19L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%79%21%
3.89
4
Carrie Kuehn
17W–8L career · 3 lines in 2025
1%89%10%
3.82
Jackie Heinen
16W–8L career · 3 lines in 2025
4%93%4%
3.75
Stephannie Tanner
35W–28L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%63%37%
3.45
Erika Carlisle
21W–14L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%73%27%
3.41
Vickie Anderson
13W–14L career · 1 line in 2025
27%72%<1%
3.08

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.