Teams

McGee/JB/3Oaks

2026 Combo 18 & Over 2.5, 6.5, 8.5, 10.5 · 6.5 Women

8 players · average NTRP 3.00 / ARKANSAS

View scouting list →
Schedule11 upcoming · 2 played
Sep 14 7:30 PM
at Evins/JB/3Oaks
Three Oaks Racquet Club
Sep 16 5:30 PM
Three Oaks Racquet Club
Sep 17 7:30 PM
vs Myers/JB/3Oaks
Three Oaks Racquet Club
Sep 20 2:00 PM
at Chandler/JB/APCC
Allen Park Community Center
Sep 21 7:30 PM
Three Oaks Racquet Club
Sep 27 2:00 PM
Three Oaks Racquet Club
Sep 28 7:30 PM
at Myers/JB/3Oaks
Three Oaks Racquet Club
Oct 1 7:30 PM
vs Evins/JB/3Oaks
Three Oaks Racquet Club
Oct 4 2:00 PM
at Myers/JB/3Oaks
Three Oaks Racquet Club
Oct 12 7:30 PM
vs Chandler/JB/APCC
Three Oaks Racquet Club
Oct 14 5:30 PM
Three Oaks Racquet Club
2026-08-24vs McClain/JB/JCCLost 12
W#1 DoublesMadison Matthews / Elizabeth Cox vs Nan Smith / Mallory Hurst7-6, 6-2
L#2 DoublesWendy Evins / Meghan Scott vs Anna Koch / Sarah Gifford3-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesKarysta Sturges / Destiny McGee vs Sara Gay / Allie Steenkamp6-7, 1-6
2026-08-19vs Myers-Kibler/JB/3OaksWon 30
W#1 DoublesWendy Evins / Autumn Eastep vs Lindsay Privett / Taylor Wildy6-4, 6-1
W#2 DoublesMadison Matthews / Maggie Barnes vs Jamie Chandler / Brittany McFadden6-2, 6-2
W#3 DoublesMeghan Scott / Katie Reeves vs Lauren Parker / Melanie Burnett6-0, 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 6.5 Women 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 2.99 estimated across 8 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
Madison Matthews
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.11
Sarah Milton
published
3.08
Wendy Evins
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
3.04
Katie Reeves
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.92
Meghan Scott
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
2.92
Maggie Barnes
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.89
Destiny McGee
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.74
Autumn Eastep
usually #1 Doubles 100% · 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.

Meghan Scott + Destiny McGee2444% gamesnot enough data
Autumn Eastep + Destiny McGee2348% gamesnot enough data
Meghan Scott + Katie Reeves3263% gamesnot enough data
Sarah Milton + Katie Reeves4157% gamesnot enough data
Autumn Eastep + Maggie Barnes213 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.

Madison Matthews
9W–12L career · 2 lines in 2026
3%95%3%
3.25
Sarah Milton
46W–10L career · no lines in 2026
<1%19%81%
3.11
Wendy Evins
33W–7L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%26%74%
3.08
Katie Reeves
16W–11L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%38%62%
3.04
Meghan Scott
11W–14L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%72%28%
2.92
Maggie Barnes
16W–14L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%72%28%
2.92
3
Destiny McGee
10W–10L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%80%20%
2.89
3
Autumn Eastep
13W–16L career · 1 line in 2026
3%94%2%
2.74

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.