Teams

Churchey/Memphis

2026 Adult 18 & Over -Memphis · 3.0 Women 18 & over

11 players · average NTRP 3.00 / TENNESSEE

View scouting list →
Schedule9 played
2026-04-30vs Thompson/MemphisLost 13
L#1 SinglesDebbie Churchey vs Melissa Sherrod0-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesAmi Tasker / Tanya Myers vs Melanie Schrank / Betsy Brown2-6, 4-6
W#2 SinglesMichelle Ragan vs Rachel Montague6-0, 6-2
L#3 DoublesPamela Hauber / Nancy Bush vs Jennifer Sigan / Kelly Irvine0-6, 1-6
2026-04-21vs Walton/MemphisWon 21
L#1 DoublesAmi Tasker / Tanya Myers vs Sarah Spinosa / Jenny Ezzell7-5, 3-6, 1-0
W#1 SinglesMichelle Ragan vs Elizabeth Kennedy7-6, 6-0
W#3 DoublesMaria Gonzalez / Angela Brackett vs Brittany Glisson / Rebekah Sudduth7-5, 6-3
2026-04-16vs Galdieri/MemphisSplit 22
L#1 DoublesAngela Brackett / Karen Franklin vs Deena Knight / Gaby Orta4-6, 6-7
L#1 SinglesMaggie Lee vs Paige Swanquist2-6, 6-7
W#2 DoublesCarla Higgins / Susan Dacus vs Kelly Baker / Rachel Burford6-2, 3-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesNancy Bush / Mary Durham vs Emily Craven / Hollie Marszalek6-3, 4-6, 1-0
2026-04-09vs Rohlinger/MemphisWon 40
W#1 DoublesMaggie Lee / Mary Durham vs Bonnie Price / Teresa Donahue6-3, 7-5
W#1 SinglesCarla Higgins vs Mary Margaret Posey6-1, 6-3
W#2 DoublesPamela Hauber / Nancy Bush vs Cori Egan / Meredith Philips7-5, 4-6, 1-0
W#2 SinglesDebbie Churchey vs Nancy Chandrasekaran6-3, 6-1
2026-04-03vs Wisley/MemphisLost 03
L#1 DoublesDebbie Churchey / Carla Higgins vs Clare Swatley / Megan Toms6-3, 1-6, 0-1
L#1 SinglesMichelle Ragan vs Catherine Owen3-6, 5-7
L#2 DoublesPamela Hauber / Maggie Lee vs Kelsey Watts / Dorothy Work3-6, 7-5, 1-0
2026-04-02vs Moore/MemphisWon 30
W#1 DoublesAmi Tasker / Tanya Myers vs Angie Moore / Jenny Harmeier6-4, 6-0
W#1 SinglesMichelle Ragan vs Wendy Spas7-5, 6-4
W#2 DoublesMary Durham / Tricia Bergeron vs Janet Grillis / Amanda Scott7-6, 3-6, 1-0
2026-03-26vs Umansky/MemphisLost 12
L#1 DoublesTricia Bergeron / Karen Franklin vs Micaela Cignetti / Jennifer Muhlbauer1-6, 1-6
W#1 SinglesMichelle Ragan vs Elizabeth Darby6-4, 6-2
L#3 DoublesMaggie Lee / Pamela Hauber vs Jenny Duncan / Kimberly Hester2-6, 3-6
2026-03-19vs Hartman/MemphisSplit 22
L#1 DoublesKaren Franklin / Tanya Myers vs Katie McDermott / Caroline Martin4-6, 4-6
W#1 SinglesMaggie Lee vs Susannah Mays3-6, 7-5, 1-0
L#2 DoublesTricia Bergeron / Susan Dacus vs Callie Mejia / Natalie Hartman7-5, 5-7, 0-1
W#3 DoublesPamela Hauber / Mary Durham vs Lexis Zellner / Anna Avant6-2, 6-2
2026-03-05vs Sones/MemphisWon 21
L#1 DoublesMary Durham / Tricia Bergeron vs Ashley Riney / Jessica Staszak4-6, 4-6
W#1 SinglesMichelle Ragan vs Mollie Fields6-1, 6-3
W#3 DoublesAmi Tasker / Tanya Myers vs Amber McCabe / Casey Gleysteen6-2, 6-0
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 3.0 Women 18 & over 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 2.84 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.

3.21
Carla Higgins
usually #1 Doubles 33%, also #1 Singles 33% · published 3
3.06
Debbie Churchey
usually #1 Singles 56%, also #2 Singles 22% · published 3
2.93
Tricia Bergeron
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
2.92
Tanya Myers
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published
2.89
Ami Tasker
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3
2.79
Michelle Ragan
usually #1 Singles 83%, also #2 Singles 17% · published
2.77
Susan Dacus
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.75
Maggie Lee
usually #1 Singles 40%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published
2.73
Nancy Bush
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
2.67
Pamela Hauber
usually #3 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published
2.50
Angela Brackett
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3
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.

Carla Higgins + Debbie Churchey12266% games+6.0% vs expected
Tanya Myers + Ami Tasker211454% games+6.0% vs expected
Maggie Lee + Pamela Hauber4845% games+5.4% vs expected
Susan Dacus + Carla Higgins134 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.

3
Carla Higgins
37W–16L career · type A · 3 lines in 2026
<1%7%93%
3.21
3
Debbie Churchey
31W–29L career · 9 lines in 2026
<1%33%67%
3.06
Tricia Bergeron
14W–11L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%69%31%
2.93
Tanya Myers
24W–16L career · 5 lines in 2026
<1%70%30%
2.92
3
Ami Tasker
27W–20L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%79%21%
2.89
Michelle Ragan
18W–30L career · 6 lines in 2026
2%91%7%
2.79
Susan Dacus
12W–16L career · 2 lines in 2026
3%92%5%
2.77
Maggie Lee
26W–24L career · 5 lines in 2026
4%93%3%
2.75
Nancy Bush
12W–2L career · 3 lines in 2026
5%92%3%
2.73
Pamela Hauber
9W–15L career · 5 lines in 2026
12%87%1%
2.67
3
Angela Brackett
14W–12L career · 2 lines in 2026
50%50%<1%
2.50

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.