Teams

Davis

2025 Sequoyah Southern Tri-Level 18 & Over - Christmas Tourn · 18 & Over Ladies Tri-Level(2.5

12 players · average NTRP 3.42 / GEORGIA

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2024-12-08vs Sequoyah/Amanda NelsonLost 12
L#1 DoublesMarlee Allen / Becky George vs Ashley Venkatesu / Brittany Portwood6-4, 4-6, 0-1
W#2 DoublesAshlyn Thornton / MacI Mills vs Amanda Nelson / Melissa Gamez-Olmeda6-3, 6-4
L#3 DoublesJennifer Kerce / Pam Mills vs Brooke Greenway / Lynde Pas6-7, 4-6
2024-12-07vs Sequoyah/Amanda NelsonLost 12
L#1 DoublesTara McFarlane / Marlee Allen vs Meghan Wells / Ruby Christian5-7, 4-6
L#2 DoublesCrissy Davis / MacI Mills vs Terina Hullender / Amanda Nelson6-4, 5-7, 0-1
W#3 DoublesJennifer Kerce / Sarah Arthur vs Urooj Wali / Abby Hastings4-6, 6-2, 1-0
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 18 & Over Ladies Tri-Level(2.5 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 3.08 estimated across 11 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.

3.50
Ashlyn Thornton
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.28
Tara McFarlane
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.27
Crissy Davis
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.25
Candace Mason
published 3.5
3.23
Becky George
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.12
Berkley Potts
published 3
3.10
MacI Mills
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.87
Amber King
published 3
2.86
Sarah Arthur
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.84
Jennifer Kerce
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.59
Pam Mills
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Marlee Allen
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.

Ashlyn Thornton + Jennifer Kerce5067% games+10.7% vs expected
Pam Mills + MacI Mills11654% games+10.6% vs expected
Amber King + Sarah Arthur6259% games+9.1% vs expected
Ashlyn Thornton + Pam Mills5075% games+8.2% vs expected
Crissy Davis + Candace Mason5163% games+7.6% vs expected
Crissy Davis + Sarah Arthur4157% games+1.9% vs expected
Pam Mills + Jennifer Kerce6551% games+0.5% vs expected
Ashlyn Thornton + Candace Mason5085% 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.

3.5
Ashlyn Thornton
76W–1L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%51%49%
3.50
Tara McFarlane
47W–66L career · 1 line in 2025
2%92%6%
3.28
3.5
Crissy Davis
64W–22L career · 1 line in 2025
3%92%5%
3.27
3.5
Candace Mason
57W–13L career · no lines in 2025
4%93%4%
3.25
4
Becky George
27W–9L career · 1 line in 2025
97%3%<1%
3.23
3
Berkley Potts
14W–2L career · no lines in 2025
<1%21%79%
3.12
MacI Mills
43W–27L career · 2 lines in 2025
0%<1%>99%
3.10
3
Amber King
17W–8L career · no lines in 2025
<1%81%18%
2.87
Sarah Arthur
34W–14L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%83%16%
2.86
Jennifer Kerce
50W–25L career · 2 lines in 2025
0%1%99%
2.84
Pam Mills
44W–38L career · 1 line in 2025
0%25%75%
2.59
Marlee Allen
14W–7L career · 2 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.