Teams

Hagood40+3.5/META

2025 Adult 40 & Over-META · 3.5 Women

10 players · average NTRP 3.50 / TENNESSEE

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2025-05-22vs Cox/METAWon 21
W#1 DoublesDonna Morris / Mary Warner vs Dana Wenzell / Jane Dean6-0, 6-3
L#2 DoublesJoan Hagood / Theresa Boyd vs Sarah LaGuardia / Ju Mo0-6, 5-7
W#3 DoublesAnita Jilton / Susan Taylor vs Kirsten Hoskins / Jan Goodsell6-4, 7-5
2025-05-07vs Cox/METAWon 21
W#1 DoublesKeo Jur / Susan Taylor vs Holly Grammer / Jan Goodsell4-6, 6-0, 1-0
L#1 SinglesAnita Jilton vs Soma Mukherjee1-6, 0-6
W#2 DoublesPam Mobley / Donna Morris vs Kirsten Hoskins / Aileen Frazier6-1, 6-1
2025-05-04vs Cox/METASplit 22
L#1 DoublesSandra Cook / Anita Jilton vs Jane Dean / Shawn Dougherty3-6, 5-7
L#1 SinglesShannon Hinkle vs Holly Grammer2-6, 1-6
W#2 DoublesPam Mobley / Mary Warner vs Sarah LaGuardia / Ju Mo6-3, 6-2
W#3 DoublesDonna Morris / Carolyn Webb vs Holli Cox / Lynne Little6-4, 4-6, 1-0
2025-04-23vs Cox/METAWon 31
W#1 DoublesPam Mobley / Mary Warner vs Dana Wenzell / Ju Mo6-2, 7-5
L#1 SinglesShannon Hinkle vs Holly Grammer0-6, 6-2, 0-1
W#2 DoublesTheresa Boyd / Jacquelyn Wondergem vs Jane Dean / Sarah LaGuardia6-4, 4-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesKeo Jur / Susan Taylor vs Jan Goodsell / Kirsten Hoskins6-3, 6-2
2025-04-13vs Cox/METAWon 21
W#1 DoublesDonna Morris / Carolyn Webb vs Jane Dean / Shawn Dougherty6-2, 6-0
L#1 SinglesJacquelyn Wondergem vs Soma Mukherjee4-6, 6-4, 0-1
W#2 DoublesPam Mobley / Mary Warner vs Kirsten Hoskins / Laura Reeves6-1, 6-0
2025-03-23vs Cox/METALost 12
L#1 DoublesLisa Peterson / Shannon Hinkle vs Lynne Little / Sarah LaGuardia3-6, 1-6
W#2 DoublesDonna Morris / Keo Jur vs Holli Cox / Aileen Frazier6-4, 6-3
L#3 DoublesSandra Cook / Theresa Boyd vs Dana Wenzell / Shawn Dougherty6-1, 3-6, 0-1
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 standings2 teams · 3.5 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Hagood40+3.5/META4215921166
2Cox/META2491534235

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 3.15 estimated across 9 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.

3.54
Jacquelyn Wondergem
usually #4 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 17% · published 4
3.43
Donna Morris
usually #2 Doubles 40%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published 3.5
3.28
Pam Mobley
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published
3.17
Theresa Boyd
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
3.13
Carolyn Webb
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.13
Shannon Hinkle
usually #1 Singles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
3.06
Keo Jur
usually #1 Doubles 43%, also #3 Doubles 29% · published
3.03
Anita Jilton
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #1 Doubles 20% · published 3
2.55
Joan Hagood
usually #2 Doubles 63%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published
Stacey McKenzie
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.

Carolyn Webb + Donna Morris3354% games−3.3% vs expected
Joan Hagood + Anita Jilton2444% games−4.0% vs expected
Anita Jilton + Theresa Boyd224 matchesnot enough data
Joan Hagood + Keo Jur123 matchesnot enough data
Anita Jilton + Keo Jur213 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
Jacquelyn Wondergem
8W–11L career · 6 lines in 2025
37%63%<1%
3.54
3.5
Donna Morris
12W–14L career · 5 lines in 2025
<1%70%30%
3.43
Pam Mobley
13W–9L career · 4 lines in 2025
2%94%4%
3.28
Theresa Boyd
12W–12L career · 3 lines in 2025
10%90%1%
3.17
3.5
Carolyn Webb
8W–5L career · 2 lines in 2025
15%85%<1%
3.13
Shannon Hinkle
20W–27L career · 3 lines in 2025
16%84%<1%
3.13
Keo Jur
17W–14L career · 7 lines in 2025
<1%33%67%
3.06
3
Anita Jilton
36W–24L career · 10 lines in 2025
<1%40%60%
3.03
Joan Hagood
8W–20L career · 8 lines in 2025
34%66%<1%
2.55
Stacey McKenzie
1W–1L 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.