Teams

Mathews-LCC-2.5

2025 Pine Belt Singles League · 2.5 Women

7 players · average NTRP 2.50 / MISSISSIPPI

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2025-12-08vs Walley-Sportsplex-2.5Lost 02
L#1 SinglesLeighann Stevens vs Sarah Sumrall1-6, 0-6
L#2 SinglesLauren Bynum vs Bayley Alexander1-6, 1-6
2025-12-01vs Walley-Sportsplex-2.5Split 11
L#1 SinglesLauren Bynum vs Sarah Sumrall1-6, 0-6
W#2 SinglesMarissa Landon vs Stephanie McMullan7-5, 6-1
2025-11-24vs Walley-Sportsplex-2.5Lost 03
L#1 SinglesLeighann Stevens vs Holly Alexander0-6, 5-7
L#2 SinglesMarissa Landon vs Haden Walters3-6, 1-6
L#3 SinglesKatie Hinton vs Bayley Alexander1-6, 0-6
2025-11-17vs Walley-Sportsplex-2.5Lost 12
W#1 SinglesMarissa Landon vs Haden Walters7-5, 6-1
L#2 SinglesLauren Bynum vs Holly Alexander3-6, 1-6
L#3 SinglesKatie Hinton vs Haley Walley0-6, 0-6
2025-11-03vs Walley-Sportsplex-2.5Lost 03
L#1 SinglesLeighann Stevens vs Haley Walley0-6, 1-6
L#2 SinglesAmanda Mathews vs Sarah Sumrall0-6, 0-6
L#3 SinglesClaire Thames vs Stephanie McMullan2-6, 3-6
2025-10-27vs Walley-Sportsplex-2.5Lost 03
L#1 SinglesMarissa Landon vs Haley Walley1-6, 2-6
L#2 SinglesAmanda Mathews vs Haden Walters1-6, 2-6
L#3 SinglesKatie Hinton vs Holly Alexander1-6, 1-6
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 2.5 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 1.98 estimated across 5 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.

2.17
Katie Hinton
usually #3 Singles 100% · published
1.99
Amanda Mathews
usually #2 Singles 100% · published 2.5
1.99
Claire Thames
usually #3 Singles 100% · published 2.5
1.87
Lauren Bynum
usually #2 Singles 67%, also #1 Singles 33% · published
1.87
Leighann Stevens
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
Katie Bergin
published
Marissa Landon
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 50% · 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.

Leighann Stevens + Claire Thames0515% gamesnot enough data
Amanda Mathews + Marissa Landon033 matchesnot enough data
Amanda Mathews + Katie Hinton123 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.

Katie Hinton
7W–9L career · 3 lines in 2025
0%99%1%
2.17
2.5
Amanda Mathews
3W–25L career · 2 lines in 2025
0%>99%<1%
1.99
2.5
Claire Thames
2W–9L career · type S · 1 line in 2025
0%>99%<1%
1.99
Lauren Bynum
0W–25L career · 3 lines in 2025
0%>99%<1%
1.87
Leighann Stevens
3W–20L career · 3 lines in 2025
0%>99%<1%
1.87
Katie Bergin
0W–1L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Marissa Landon
8W–20L career · 4 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.