Teams

Watson, Lee Anne

2026 Combo 18 & Over-JXN · Women 6.5

9 players · average NTRP 3.33 / MISSISSIPPI

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2026-08-27vs Howard, JamieWon 21
W#1 DoublesRachel Watson / Jenny Claire Hammond Dyre vs Cameron Trussell / Rebecca Bagwell7-5, 6-4
L#2 DoublesShelley White / Andrea Edwards vs Jamie Howard / Leigh Lloyd2-6, 4-6
W#3 DoublesMary Nalder / Aubrey Davis vs Neely Morrison / Stephany Cooper3-6, 7-5, 1-0
2026-08-20vs Stewart, KaitiLost 03
L#1 DoublesAubrey Davis / Mary Evans vs Peyton Puckett / Ellie Boutot0-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesMary Kate Diltz / Carrie Rayborn vs Cece Sherrod / Caroline Swindoll3-6, 6-4, 0-1
L#3 DoublesGrace Nicaud Thompson / Shelley White vs Kaiti Stewart / Mitra Bayati6-7, 4-6
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 Women 6.5 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 2.98 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.

3.27
Mary Kate Diltz
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.24
Aubrey Davis
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.20
Grace Nicaud Thompson
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.10
Tina Fulcher
published
2.91
Mary Nalder
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.81
Carrie Rayborn
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.79
Rachel Watson
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.77
Lee Anne Watson
published
2.71
Shelley White
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · 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.

Lee Anne Watson + Carrie Rayborn5160% games+12.2% vs expected
Lee Anne Watson + Mary Nalder4260% games+9.4% vs expected
Mary Kate Diltz + Aubrey Davis5083% games+7.8% vs expected
Carrie Rayborn + Rachel Watson3448% games+6.3% vs expected
Lee Anne Watson + Mary Kate Diltz5164% games+5.3% vs expected
Shelley White + Carrie Rayborn5454% games+2.8% vs expected
Lee Anne Watson + Shelley White8653% games−4.2% vs expected
Lee Anne Watson + Tina Fulcher303 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.

Mary Kate Diltz
56W–22L career · 3 lines in 2026
2%94%4%
3.27
3.5
Aubrey Davis
32W–6L career · 2 lines in 2026
3%94%2%
3.24
3.5
Grace Nicaud Thompson
2W–3L career · type S · 3 lines in 2026
6%93%1%
3.20
Tina Fulcher
51W–27L career · no lines in 2026
21%79%<1%
3.10
Mary Nalder
27W–12L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%75%25%
2.91
3
Carrie Rayborn
42W–30L career · 1 line in 2026
1%92%7%
2.81
Rachel Watson
17W–11L career · 1 line in 2026
1%93%5%
2.79
Lee Anne Watson
64W–37L career · no lines in 2026
2%94%4%
2.77
Shelley White
45W–38L career · 2 lines in 2026
5%93%1%
2.71

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.