Teams

PRC - Honeycutt

2025 B'ham Combo - Adult 18 & Over Women Weekday · 8.5 Tuesday Morning

10 players · average NTRP 4.12 / ALABAMA

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2025-08-12vs Greystone YMCA - BakerWon 10
W#1 DoublesKathy Honeycutt / Angie Blaising vs Courtney Johnson / Kim Chunn6-2, 6-4
2025-07-29vs Highland Park - SheaLost 01
L#3 DoublesKim Nolen / Angie Blaising vs Emily White / Maggie Misner3-6, 3-6
2025-07-08vs Highland Park - SheaLost 01
L#3 DoublesKim Nolen / Angie Blaising vs Erica Williams / Maggie Misner7-6, 5-7, 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 standings for 8.5 Tuesday Morning 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 3.94 estimated across 10 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.

4.24
Tami Hansen
published
4.17
Elaine Reid
published
4.00
Courtney Manasco
published 4.5
3.92
3.92
Angie Blaising
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.89
Andie Mango
published 4
3.87
Dana Ling
published 4
3.84
Kim Nolen
published
3.81
Kathy Honeycutt
published
3.75
Sherry Clark
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.

Tracey Dalzell Walsh + Sherry Clark4257% games+2.1% vs expected
Tracey Dalzell Walsh + Angie Blaising4259% games−1.4% vs expected
Tracey Dalzell Walsh + Dana Ling134 matchesnot enough data
Kathy Honeycutt + Dana Ling224 matchesnot enough data
Dana Ling + Sherry Clark224 matchesnot enough data
Tami Hansen + Kathy Honeycutt213 matchesnot enough data
Tami Hansen + Sherry Clark213 matchesnot enough data
Kathy Honeycutt + Angie Blaising213 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.

Tami Hansen
22W–5L career · no lines in 2025
4%93%3%
4.24
Elaine Reid
24W–8L career · no lines in 2025
12%88%1%
4.17
4.5
Courtney Manasco
25W–17L career · no lines in 2025
49%51%<1%
4.00
Tracey Dalzell Walsh
32W–18L career · no lines in 2025
<1%71%29%
3.92
4
Angie Blaising
83W–56L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%72%27%
3.92
4
Andie Mango
21W–15L career · no lines in 2025
<1%79%21%
3.89
4
Dana Ling
20W–12L career · no lines in 2025
<1%82%17%
3.87
Kim Nolen
10W–9L career · no lines in 2025
87%13%<1%
3.84
Kathy Honeycutt
16W–35L career · no lines in 2025
91%9%<1%
3.81
Sherry Clark
47W–26L career · no lines in 2025
4%93%3%
3.75

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.