Teams

Berry

2025 Tri-Level 18 & Over-SW · Women 4.5, 4.0, 3.5

11 players · average NTRP 4.00 / MISSISSIPPI

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2025-07-28vs Brewer/LeggettWon 10
W#1 DoublesMary Lindsey Lumley / Emily Lowery vs Christy Ard / Jennifer Townsend5-7, 7-5, 1-0
2025-07-22vs Weekley Tri-Level 2025Won 10
W#1 DoublesChristy Ard / Paige Sullivan vs Brittany Bass / Brooklyn Schmidt6-3, 3-6, 1-0
2025-07-15vs Weekley Tri-Level 2025Won 10
W#3 DoublesMary Lindsey Lumley / Emily Lowery vs Charly Schmidt / Brooklyn Schmidt7-5, 6-3
2025-07-14vs Brewer/LeggettWon 10
W#1 DoublesMary Lindsey Lumley / Emily Lowery vs Leah Stewart / Jennifer Townsend6-1, 6-2
2025-07-01Won 10
W#1 DoublesChristy Ard / Paige Sullivan vs Emily Lowery / Missy Kilpatrick7-5, 6-4
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 standings1 teams · Women 4.5, 4.0, 3.5
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Berry000000

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 3.63 estimated across 6 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.

3.93
Diane Hay
published 4
3.70
Taylor Berry
published
3.64
Kimberly McNeese
published
3.61
Paige Sullivan
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.58
Mary Lindsey Lumley
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
3.32
Staci Anding
published
Kara Chapman
published
Karlee Byrd
published
Meredith Miller
published
Missy Kilpatrick
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Terah Shelby
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.

Missy Kilpatrick + Paige Sullivan4161% gamesnot enough data
Meredith Miller + Paige Sullivan404 matchesnot enough data
Missy Kilpatrick + Staci Anding314 matchesnot enough data
Kimberly McNeese + Taylor Berry033 matchesnot enough data
Taylor Berry + Karlee Byrd123 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.

4
Diane Hay
17W–5L career · no lines in 2025
<1%71%28%
3.93
Taylor Berry
11W–11L career · no lines in 2025
6%93%1%
3.70
Kimberly McNeese
10W–7L career · no lines in 2025
15%85%<1%
3.64
Paige Sullivan
38W–8L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%20%80%
3.61
Mary Lindsey Lumley
26W–13L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%27%73%
3.58
Staci Anding
26W–10L career · no lines in 2025
1%91%8%
3.32
Kara Chapman
3W–2L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Karlee Byrd
7W–4L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Meredith Miller
18W–9L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Missy Kilpatrick
9W–10L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Terah Shelby
2W–3L 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.