Teams

CCC-Reeves

2025 · 26 NEGTA USTA Adult 40 & Over - Fall

28 players · average NTRP 3.17 / GEORGIA

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2025-11-12Won 10
W#4 DoublesLaurie Fox / Ali Thompson vs Claudia Kempen / Jeanne Lewis6-2, 7-5
2025-10-24vs CCC-CollinsWon 10
W#4 DoublesLaurie Fox / Amy Britt vs Angela Cain / Jane Lake6-0, 6-1
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 26 NEGTA USTA Adult 40 & Over - Fall 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 2.98 estimated across 28 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.

3.47
Margaret Gaines
usually #1 Doubles 43%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
3.36
Brandi Barber
usually #2 Doubles 64%, also #1 Doubles 36% · published 3.5
3.19
Pamela Hoosh
usually #1 Singles 82%, also #1 Doubles 9% · published
3.14
Julie McCoy
usually #2 Doubles 48%, also #1 Doubles 26% · published
3.14
Julie McCoy
usually #2 Doubles 48%, also #1 Doubles 26% · published
3.08
Ellen Lark
usually #2 Doubles 44%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
3.06
Sherry Dubose
usually #4 Doubles 100% · published
3.04
Cathy Cobb
usually #1 Singles 48%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3
3.04
Cathy Cobb
usually #1 Singles 48%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3
3.01
Allyson Reeves
usually #2 Doubles 32%, also #1 Doubles 26% · published 3
3.01
Allyson Reeves
usually #2 Doubles 32%, also #1 Doubles 26% · published 3
3.00
Ali Thompson
usually #1 Doubles 35%, also #4 Doubles 28% · published 3.5
3.00
Ali Thompson
usually #1 Doubles 35%, also #4 Doubles 28% · published 3.5
3.00
Laurie Fox
usually #4 Doubles 100% · published
3.00
Laurie Fox
usually #4 Doubles 100% · published
2.94
Lynn McGee
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #4 Doubles 30% · published
2.88
Kimberly Sekulow
usually #3 Doubles 44%, also #4 Doubles 33% · published
2.88
Kimberly Sekulow
usually #3 Doubles 44%, also #4 Doubles 33% · published
2.88
Melanie Abernathy
usually #2 Doubles 38%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published
2.88
Melanie Abernathy
usually #2 Doubles 38%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published
2.87
Claudia Kempen
usually #4 Doubles 33%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.85
Meredith West
usually #4 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 38% · published
2.84
Eve Sartain
usually #3 Doubles 40%, also #4 Doubles 30% · published
2.84
Eve Sartain
usually #3 Doubles 40%, also #4 Doubles 30% · published
2.79
Kara Lewis
usually #3 Doubles 56%, also #4 Doubles 33% · published
2.79
Kara Lewis
usually #3 Doubles 56%, also #4 Doubles 33% · published
2.77
Amy Britt
usually #4 Doubles 75%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 3
2.75
Meg Nivens
usually #3 Doubles 60%, also #4 Doubles 20% · 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.

Cathy Cobb + Melanie Abernathy4253% games+5.4% vs expected
Allyson Reeves + Melanie Abernathy141053% games+4.9% vs expected
Ali Thompson + Julie McCoy8263% games+3.1% vs expected
Lynn McGee + Allyson Reeves2347% games+1.3% vs expected
Brandi Barber + Julie McCoy3841% games−5.0% vs expected
Brandi Barber + Allyson Reeves2349% gamesnot enough data
Claudia Kempen + Julie McCoy3253% gamesnot enough data
Lynn McGee + Ellen Lark044 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.

Margaret Gaines
34W–18L career · 20 lines in 2026
<1%<1%>99%
3.47
3.5
Brandi Barber
12W–20L career · 14 lines in 2026
1%84%15%
3.36
Pamela Hoosh
4W–15L career · 11 lines in 2026
9%90%1%
3.19
Julie McCoy
19W–28L career · 31 lines in 2026
17%83%<1%
3.14
Julie McCoy
19W–28L career · 31 lines in 2026
17%83%<1%
3.14
Ellen Lark
19W–32L career · 9 lines in 2026
<1%28%72%
3.08
Sherry Dubose
1W–13L career · 4 lines in 2026
34%66%<1%
3.06
3
Cathy Cobb
27W–30L career · 21 lines in 2026
<1%39%61%
3.04
3
Cathy Cobb
27W–30L career · 21 lines in 2026
<1%39%61%
3.04
3
Allyson Reeves
29W–26L career · 19 lines in 2026
<1%48%52%
3.01
3
Allyson Reeves
29W–26L career · 19 lines in 2026
<1%48%52%
3.01
3.5
Ali Thompson
18W–21L career · 29 lines in 2026
49%51%<1%
3.00
3.5
Ali Thompson
18W–21L career · 29 lines in 2026
49%51%<1%
3.00
Laurie Fox
3W–0L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%49%51%
3.00
Laurie Fox
3W–0L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%49%51%
3.00
Lynn McGee
12W–28L career · 10 lines in 2026
<1%66%34%
2.94
Kimberly Sekulow
4W–10L career · 9 lines in 2026
<1%79%21%
2.88
Kimberly Sekulow
4W–10L career · 9 lines in 2026
<1%79%21%
2.88
Melanie Abernathy
27W–21L career · 16 lines in 2026
<1%80%20%
2.88
Melanie Abernathy
27W–21L career · 16 lines in 2026
<1%80%20%
2.88
3
Claudia Kempen
10W–16L career · 15 lines in 2026
<1%82%17%
2.87
Meredith West
7W–8L career · 8 lines in 2026
1%86%14%
2.85
Eve Sartain
10W–23L career · 10 lines in 2026
1%87%13%
2.84
Eve Sartain
10W–23L career · 10 lines in 2026
1%87%13%
2.84
Kara Lewis
14W–5L career · 9 lines in 2026
2%92%6%
2.79
Kara Lewis
14W–5L career · 9 lines in 2026
2%92%6%
2.79
3
Amy Britt
8W–3L career · 4 lines in 2026
3%92%5%
2.77
Meg Nivens
8W–6L career · 5 lines in 2026
4%93%4%
2.75

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.