Teams

Watson, Lee Anne

2025 Tri-Level 18 & Over-JXN · Women 2.5, 3.0, 3.5

14 players · average NTRP 3.25 / MISSISSIPPI

View scouting list →
Schedule1 played
2025-07-27vs Donaldson, MissyWon 21
W#1 DoublesMary Kate Diltz / Anna Panter vs Tina Roberts / Dorothy Graham6-3, 6-3
L#2 DoublesCarrie Rayborn / Jennifer Bradshaw vs Ellie Boutot / Joy Cloud2-6, 6-3, 0-1
W#3 DoublesCourtney Merideth / Valerie Thames vs Susan Hale / Lisa Wheat5-7, 6-2, 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 standings for Women 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 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 2.82 estimated across 10 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.

3.25
Melissa Culpepper
published
3.10
Aubrey Davis
published 3.5
3.04
Jenny Claire Hammond Dyre
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.93
Mary Kate Diltz
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.87
Anna Panter
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
Courtney Merideth
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.72
Mary Nalder
published
2.66
Carrie Rayborn
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.59
Lee Anne Watson
published
2.57
Jennifer Bradshaw
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.49
Shelley White
published
Ellery Jones
published
Kelly Nations
published
Valerie Thames
usually #3 Doubles 100% · 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+14.3% vs expected
Shelley White + Carrie Rayborn3353% games+13.8% vs expected
Lee Anne Watson + Shelley White4254% games−1.6% vs expected
Lee Anne Watson + Mary Nalder314 matchesnot enough data
Carrie Rayborn + Jennifer Bradshaw134 matchesnot enough data
Lee Anne Watson + Mary Kate Diltz213 matchesnot enough data
Mary Kate Diltz + Aubrey Davis303 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.

Melissa Culpepper
8W–4L career · no lines in 2025
<1%4%96%
3.25
3.5
Aubrey Davis
14W–5L career · no lines in 2025
25%75%<1%
3.10
Jenny Claire Hammond Dyre
22W–7L career · 1 line in 2025
0%<1%>99%
3.04
Mary Kate Diltz
29W–16L career · 1 line in 2025
0%<1%>99%
2.93
3.5
Anna Panter
14W–9L career · 1 line in 2025
82%18%<1%
2.87
3
Courtney Merideth
12W–5L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Mary Nalder
16W–8L career · no lines in 2025
0%6%94%
2.72
3
Carrie Rayborn
23W–19L career · 1 line in 2025
12%87%1%
2.66
Lee Anne Watson
29W–19L career · no lines in 2025
0%27%73%
2.59
Jennifer Bradshaw
34W–23L career · 1 line in 2025
0%31%69%
2.57
Shelley White
25W–22L career · no lines in 2025
0%53%47%
2.49
Ellery Jones
7W–2L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Kelly Nations
1W–6L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Valerie Thames
3W–0L career · 1 line in 2025
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.