Teams

PD40/Perkins/FTC

2025 USTA Adult 40 & Over - PD · 3.0 Women

21 players · average NTRP 2.80 / SOUTH CAROLINA

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
2025-04-06vs PD40/Outlaw/CPWon 40
W#1 DoublesLaurin Gandy / Pamela Richardson vs Robin Downing / April Crawley7-5, 6-3
W#1 SinglesStacie Watford vs Mandy Phillips6-2, 6-4
W#2 DoublesKristen Perkins / Julieanne Yarnal vs Emily Phillips / Renee Douglas6-4, 6-3
W#4 DoublesTeresa Cheng / Rocio Perez vs Kelly Beasley / Jenniffer Outlaw6-2, 6-4
2025-03-19vs PD40/Outlaw/CPWon 41
W#1 DoublesMary Nickel / Stacie Watford vs Mandy Phillips / Cecile Mary Lange6-0, 6-2
L#1 SinglesMisty Lee vs Erin Glen4-6, 2-6
W#2 DoublesNing Wharton / Kristen Perkins vs Emily Phillips / Marla Prozzi6-7, 6-2, 1-0
W#3 DoublesLorraine Tindal / Deborah Bailey vs April Crawley / Jane Ponder4-6, 6-4, 1-0
W#4 DoublesBrandi Davis / Alexandra Ridgeway vs Robin Downing / Kelly Beasley3-6, 6-3, 1-0
2025-02-09vs PD40/Outlaw/CPWon 32
W#1 DoublesStacie Watford / Deborah Bailey vs Kelly Beasley / Jenniffer Outlaw6-1, 6-1
W#1 SinglesMisty Lee vs Mandy Phillips3-6, 6-0, 1-0
L#2 DoublesSandra Hathorn / Alexandra Ridgeway vs Robin Downing / Marla Prozzi1-6, 0-6
W#3 DoublesNing Wharton / Lorraine Tindal vs Emily Phillips / Jane Ponder6-3, 6-2
L#4 DoublesTeresa Cheng / Laura Floyd vs Cecile Mary Lange / April Crawley5-7, 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 3.0 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 2.61 estimated across 18 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.

3.06
Ning Wharton
usually #3 Doubles 40%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published
2.91
Stacie Watford
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #1 Singles 33% · published
2.86
Brandi Davis
published 3
2.83
Kathleen Stedman
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #4 Doubles 50% · published
2.76
Laurin Gandy
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.75
Julieanne Yarnal
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #4 Doubles 33% · published
2.69
Deborah Bailey
published 3
2.64
Evelyn Goforth
usually #4 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
2.63
Teresa Cheng
usually #4 Doubles 100% · published
2.62
Lorraine Tindal
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.59
Sandra Hathorn
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.57
Misty Lee
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
2.52
Kristen Perkins
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #4 Doubles 33% · published
2.50
Beth Dynan
published 3
2.41
Laura Floyd
usually #4 Doubles 100% · published
2.28
Alexandra Ridgeway
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #4 Doubles 50% · published 2.5
Denise King
published 2.5
2.16
Karen Worrell
published
2.13
Rocio Perez
usually #4 Doubles 100% · published
Mary Nickel
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
Pamela Richardson
usually #1 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.

Lorraine Tindal + Teresa Cheng5061% games+12.2% vs expected
Kathleen Stedman + Julieanne Yarnal224 matchesnot enough data
Evelyn Goforth + Karen Worrell033 matchesnot enough data
Evelyn Goforth + Laura Floyd213 matchesnot enough data
Kristen Perkins + Stacie Watford123 matchesnot enough data
Lorraine Tindal + Rocio Perez213 matchesnot enough data
Brandi Davis + Misty Lee213 matchesnot enough data
Brandi Davis + Beth Dynan213 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.

Ning Wharton
53W–15L career · 5 lines in 2025
<1%33%67%
3.06
Stacie Watford
18W–8L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%73%27%
2.91
3
Brandi Davis
5W–3L career · no lines in 2025
<1%83%16%
2.86
Kathleen Stedman
13W–12L career · 2 lines in 2025
1%87%12%
2.83
Laurin Gandy
29W–11L career · 1 line in 2025
0%3%97%
2.76
Julieanne Yarnal
12W–14L career · 3 lines in 2025
4%93%3%
2.75
3
Deborah Bailey
2W–1L career · no lines in 2025
8%90%1%
2.69
Evelyn Goforth
5W–19L career · 3 lines in 2025
16%84%1%
2.64
Teresa Cheng
28W–24L career · 2 lines in 2025
0%17%83%
2.63
Lorraine Tindal
26W–18L career · 2 lines in 2025
0%20%80%
2.62
Sandra Hathorn
4W–6L career · 1 line in 2025
25%74%<1%
2.59
Misty Lee
31W–43L career · 2 lines in 2025
0%30%70%
2.57
Kristen Perkins
13W–17L career · 3 lines in 2025
43%57%<1%
2.52
3
Beth Dynan
14W–13L career · no lines in 2025
51%49%<1%
2.50
Laura Floyd
7W–14L career · 1 line in 2025
75%25%<1%
2.41
2.5
Alexandra Ridgeway
8W–15L career · 2 lines in 2025
0%94%6%
2.28
2.5
Denise King
0W–6L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Karen Worrell
2W–14L career · no lines in 2025
0%99%1%
2.16
Rocio Perez
7W–13L career · 1 line in 2025
0%>99%<1%
2.13
Mary Nickel
9W–4L career · 4 lines in 2025
not enough data
Pamela Richardson
5W–8L career · 1 line 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.