Teams

MG Long

2025 · 2026 Fall USTA Adult 40 & Over Night League Mont

13 players · average NTRP 3.00 / ALABAMA

View scouting list →
Flight standings2 teams · 2026 Fall USTA Adult 40 & Over Night League Mont
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1MG Long8027513164
2Lagoon Melnick 40 & Over0852757359

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 3.06 estimated across 12 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.

3.38
Molly Killingsworth
usually #1 Doubles 56%, also #3 Doubles 19% · published
3.32
Holly Sharp
usually #2 Doubles 44%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
3.28
Jennifer Dobbs
usually #2 Doubles 33%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
3.15
Sally Hodges
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.13
Cameron Espy
usually #1 Doubles 46%, also #2 Doubles 27% · published 3
3.10
Elizabeth Doyle
usually #4 Doubles 39%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
3.06
Miriam Scharf
usually #1 Doubles 53%, also #2 Doubles 32% · published
2.90
Cathy Garner
usually #1 Doubles 33%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.88
Conitha King
usually #2 Doubles 59%, also #1 Doubles 18% · published 3
2.87
Sharon Woernle
usually #2 Doubles 42%, also #3 Doubles 31% · published
2.84
Carla Rush
usually #2 Doubles 61%, also #3 Doubles 28% · published 3
2.82
Regina Dinger
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 18% · published
Deborah Long
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.

Jennifer Dobbs + Holly Sharp6079% games+11.9% vs expected
Holly Sharp + Molly Killingsworth5369% games+7.8% vs expected
Regina Dinger + Sharon Woernle5552% games+2.3% vs expected
Cathy Garner + Conitha King3551% games+1.9% vs expected
Carla Rush + Conitha King6550% games−3.3% vs expected
Miriam Scharf + Molly Killingsworth9358% games−5.0% vs expected
Sharon Woernle + Elizabeth Doyle314 matchesnot enough data
Miriam Scharf + Holly Sharp224 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.

Molly Killingsworth
52W–32L career · 16 lines in 2026
<1%80%20%
3.38
Holly Sharp
63W–29L career · 27 lines in 2026
1%89%9%
3.32
Jennifer Dobbs
31W–8L career · 6 lines in 2026
2%92%5%
3.28
Sally Hodges
13W–14L career · 6 lines in 2026
14%86%1%
3.15
3
Cameron Espy
48W–19L career · 11 lines in 2026
<1%19%81%
3.13
Elizabeth Doyle
16W–28L career · 18 lines in 2026
24%76%<1%
3.10
Miriam Scharf
24W–19L career · 19 lines in 2026
34%65%<1%
3.06
3
Cathy Garner
17W–21L career · 15 lines in 2026
<1%76%24%
2.90
3
Conitha King
21W–23L career · 17 lines in 2026
<1%80%19%
2.88
Sharon Woernle
39W–34L career · 26 lines in 2026
<1%82%18%
2.87
3
Carla Rush
26W–41L career · 18 lines in 2026
1%87%13%
2.84
Regina Dinger
40W–57L career · 27 lines in 2026
1%89%10%
2.82
3
Deborah Long
3W–4L 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.