Teams

Fulk/Nashville

2025 Adult 18 & Over - Nashville · 2.5 Women - Tuesday AM

9 players · average NTRP 2.50 / TENNESSEE

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2025-04-29vs Osborne/Reuter/NashvilleWon 30
W#1 DoublesPaige Bacon / Emily Bryan vs Kristy Reuter / Mckenzie Kleinhenz6-3, 6-3
W#1 SinglesKristin Reichert vs Jennifer Drinnon6-4, 6-3
W#2 DoublesPortia Fulk / Shelby Murphy vs Brooke Prince / Hillary Murray6-2, 6-3
2025-04-15vs McClurg/Blivens/NashvilleLost 12
L#1 DoublesPortia Fulk / Kristin Reichert vs Resha Blivens / Melinda Norris-Munro3-6, 1-6
L#1 SinglesStephanie Warner vs Desiree Jones4-6, 7-5, 0-1
W#2 DoublesPaige Bacon / Emily Bryan vs Lori McClurg / Christin Spender7-5, 6-1
2025-03-25vs Forrest/Baird/NashvilleLost 12
L#1 DoublesPortia Fulk / Paige Bacon vs Sarah Baird / Megan Forrest4-6, 2-6
W#1 SinglesStephanie Warner vs Vanessa Bui6-3, 2-6, 1-0
L#2 DoublesDayna Rinkle / Susan Drake vs Hannah Harrison / Kendra Birtsch1-6, 3-6
2025-03-18vs Atkins/Garrett/NashvilleWon 21
W#1 DoublesLauren Tanner / Kristin Reichert vs Caroline Royalty / Melanie Martin6-0, 6-2
W#1 SinglesPaige Bacon vs Ashley Henderson6-0, 6-2
L#2 DoublesShelby Murphy / Emily Bryan vs Dana Atkins / Meredith Garrett4-6, 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 2.5 Women - Tuesday AM 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 2.49 estimated across 6 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.

2.85
Paige Bacon
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 25% · published
2.73
Emily Bryan
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
2.54
Shelby Murphy
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.43
Kristin Reichert
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Singles 25% · published
Dayna Rinkle
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
2.25
Portia Fulk
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
2.16
Stephanie Warner
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
Peggy Walters
published
Susan Drake
usually #2 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.

Emily Bryan + Paige Bacon404 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.

Paige Bacon
25W–6L career · 4 lines in 2025
0%1%99%
2.85
Emily Bryan
19W–4L career · 3 lines in 2025
0%5%95%
2.73
Shelby Murphy
11W–3L career · 2 lines in 2025
0%37%63%
2.54
Kristin Reichert
8W–8L career · 4 lines in 2025
0%69%31%
2.43
2.5
Dayna Rinkle
0W–2L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Portia Fulk
8W–10L career · 3 lines in 2025
0%96%4%
2.25
Stephanie Warner
3W–9L career · 2 lines in 2025
0%99%1%
2.16
Peggy Walters
0W–2L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Susan Drake
0W–3L 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.