Teams

Polk/Mason/18&Over6.5W

2024 Polk Combo 18 & Over Spring · 6.5 Women

9 players · average NTRP 3.40 / REGION_4

View scouting list →
Schedule7 played
2024-06-13vs LCC - L. ClarkSplit 11
L#1 DoublesJennifer Burns / Meghan Savant vs Joan Baldava / Lauren Lloyd1-6, 7-6, 0-1
W#2 DoublesBrittany Ward / Tyra Hunt vs Kerrie Hall / Ashley Bailey1-6, 6-1, 1-0
2024-05-30vs Beerman Borden ComboWon 10
W#1 DoublesMichaela Hillenbrand / Tyra Hunt vs Nathaly Arredondo / Karen Hogg7-6, 6-1
2024-05-23vs TNT 6.5 Combo - T. ChoeWon 10
W#1 DoublesMichaela Hillenbrand / Meghan Savant vs Leslie Simmons / Teresa Osborn6-2, 6-1
2024-05-16vs Beerman - C. MuellerWon 10
W#1 DoublesJennifer Burns / Meghan Savant vs Cynthia Nettles / Julie Hartline6-3, 4-6, 1-0
2024-05-09vs LCC - L. ClarkWon 20
W#1 DoublesMeghan Savant / Michaela Hillenbrand vs Lauren Clark / Kimberly Elmhorst6-3, 6-1
W#3 DoublesBrittany Ward / Tyra Hunt vs Lauren Lloyd / Emily Johnson6-3, 6-1
2024-05-02vs WH Dare Doubles - G. TardyWon 10
W#2 DoublesJennifer Spann / Meghan Savant vs Vanessa Barfield / Melanie Johnson6-1, 6-1
2024-04-25vs CC of WH Bad Aces - J. HymanWon 10
W#1 DoublesJennifer Burns / Meghan Savant vs Elizabeth Merritt / Jenilee Coconato6-2, 6-2
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 6.5 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 3.35 estimated across 8 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.

3.74
Kacee Swain
published
3.53
Jennifer Spann
published
3.42
3.40
Leilani Guinn
published
3.34
Meghan Savant
usually #1 Doubles 83%, also #2 Doubles 17% · published 3.5
3.33
Tyra Hunt
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
Brittany Ward
published 3.5
3.09
Jennifer Burns
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
2.94
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.

Tyra Hunt + Meghan Savant18662% games+10.6% vs expected
Jennifer Burns + Meghan Savant14858% games+6.0% vs expected
Tyra Hunt + Leilani Guinn123 matchesnot enough data
Tyra Hunt + Jennifer Burns123 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.

Kacee Swain
5W–0L career · no lines in 2024
4%93%3%
3.74
Jennifer Spann
10W–10L career · no lines in 2024
42%58%<1%
3.53
Michaela Hillenbrand
0W–3L career · no lines in 2024
72%28%<1%
3.42
Leilani Guinn
13W–13L career · no lines in 2024
<1%77%23%
3.40
3.5
Meghan Savant
82W–39L career · 6 lines in 2024
1%87%12%
3.34
3.5
Tyra Hunt
107W–99L career · 3 lines in 2024
1%88%11%
3.33
3.5
Brittany Ward
1W–1L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
3.5
Jennifer Burns
89W–64L career · 3 lines in 2024
26%74%<1%
3.09
3
Courtney McCrystal
11W–7L career · no lines in 2024
<1%67%33%
2.94

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.