Teams

Brewer, Elise

2026 Combo 18 & Over-JXN · Women 7.5

11 players · average NTRP 3.70 / MISSISSIPPI

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2026-08-25vs Mitchell, ReJohnnaWon 30
W#1 DoublesChristine Waldrop / Sumner Douglas vs ReJohnna Mitchell / Emi Smith6-3, 7-5
W#2 DoublesElise Brewer / Cameron Trussell vs Morgan Ross / Kari Thomas6-1, 6-1
W#3 DoublesMacKenzie Carmody / Grace Nicaud Thompson vs Myesha Nealon / Nyesha Nealon6-4, 3-6, 1-0
2026-08-18vs Campbell, LeslieLost 12
L#1 DoublesCarley Fetz / Rhonda Williams vs Jennifer Otto / Laura McMahon2-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesAnna Miskelly / Christine Waldrop vs Jessie Humble / Lauren Ingram4-6, 7-5, 0-1
W#3 DoublesMacKenzie Carmody / Elizabeth Randall vs Madison Curtis / Mary Kate Diltz2-6, 6-1, 1-0
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 standings5 teams · Women 7.5
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Jackson, Susan1021324
2Adams, Amber000000
3Brewer, Elise000000
4Campbell, Leslie000000
5Mitchell, ReJohnna0112534

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 3.37 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.

3.83
Elise Brewer
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.52
Sumner Douglas
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.52
MacKenzie Carmody
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published
3.43
Anna Miskelly
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.33
Cameron Trussell
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.33
Makenzie Woodward
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.32
Carley Fetz
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.21
Christine Waldrop
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
2.88
Crystal Glenn
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
Grace Nicaud Thompson
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Rhonda Williams
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.

MacKenzie Carmody + Sumner Douglas4253% games+10.7% vs expected
MacKenzie Carmody + Anna Miskelly6155% games+7.1% vs expected
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.

Elise Brewer
34W–10L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%1%99%
3.83
Sumner Douglas
40W–8L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%<1%>99%
3.52
MacKenzie Carmody
41W–17L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%45%55%
3.52
4
Anna Miskelly
22W–16L career · 3 lines in 2026
69%31%<1%
3.43
3.5
Cameron Trussell
21W–14L career · 3 lines in 2026
1%88%11%
3.33
Makenzie Woodward
9W–2L career · 1 line in 2026
89%11%<1%
3.33
4
Carley Fetz
23W–22L career · 1 line in 2026
90%10%<1%
3.32
3.5
Christine Waldrop
14W–9L career · 2 lines in 2026
7%91%2%
3.21
3.5
Crystal Glenn
18W–9L career · 3 lines in 2026
81%19%<1%
2.88
Grace Nicaud Thompson
1W–3L career · 2 lines in 2026
not enough data
Rhonda Williams
39W–42L career · no lines in 2026
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.