Teams

McMaster/18/Div1/Tri-Lvl/Ruston

2026 Ruston Tri Level 18 & Over - Women · 3.5,3.0,2.5 Ruston (18&O) Women

10 players · average NTRP 3.00 / LOUISIANA

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2026-07-26vs Sanderson/18/Div1/Tri-Lvl/RustonLost 03
L#1 DoublesApril Easley / Krystal Corbett vs Kristi Williams / Barbara Johnson5-7, 6-7
L#2 DoublesShelby Daum / Mary Moore vs Tina Otwell / Brandy Roberson5-7, 1-6
L#3 DoublesAnna Garmon / Sarah Terral vs Cori Crittenden / Ashlea Price0-6, 0-6
2026-07-23vs Johnson/18/Div1/Tri-Lvl/RustonWon 21
L#1 DoublesApril Easley / Krystal Corbett vs Jodi Marvin / Stefanie Simpson3-6, 6-7
W#2 DoublesMary Moore / Chelsea Pernici vs Emma Bowman / Lisa Davis6-2, 5-7, 1-0
W#3 DoublesSarah Perry / Sarah Terral vs Beth Everett / Hannah McKenzie6-1, 6-0
2026-06-28vs Sanderson/18/Div1/Tri-Lvl/RustonLost 03
L#1 DoublesKylie Berry / Rachel McGehee vs Kristi Williams / Barbara Johnson1-6, 4-6
L#2 DoublesShelby Daum / Whitney Doiron vs Tiphanie Maxwell / Donna Wilburn2-6, 0-6
L#3 DoublesAnna Garmon / Emily Tucker vs Cori Crittenden / Kelley Ivey0-6, 0-6
2026-06-21vs Johnson/18/Div1/Tri-Lvl/RustonLost 02
L#1 DoublesApril Easley / Chelsea Pernici vs Jessica Johnson / Lynn Barron6-2, 1-6, 1-0
L#2 DoublesJoan McMaster / Mary Moore vs Shelly Fielder / Tammy Roberts0-6, 5-7
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 standings3 teams · 3.5,3.0,2.5 Ruston (18&O) Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Sanderson/18/Div1/Tri-Lvl/Ruston40111250
2Johnson/18/Div1/Tri-Lvl/Ruston134817118
3McMaster/18/Div1/Tri-Lvl/Ruston133919122

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 2.82 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.

3.11
Kylie Berry
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.04
April Easley
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
2.97
Rachel McGehee
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.92
Krystal Corbett
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.87
Chelsea Pernici
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 3
2.64
Whitney Doiron
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.60
Shelby Daum
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.38
Joan McMaster
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Anna Garmon
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
Sarah Terral
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
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.

Kylie Berry
2W–3L career · 1 line in 2026
20%80%<1%
3.11
3.5
April Easley
6W–22L career · 3 lines in 2026
39%61%<1%
3.04
Rachel McGehee
1W–2L career · 1 line in 2026
59%41%<1%
2.97
Krystal Corbett
1W–11L career · 2 lines in 2026
72%28%<1%
2.92
3
Chelsea Pernici
24W–18L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%84%15%
2.87
Whitney Doiron
1W–4L career · 1 line in 2026
14%86%<1%
2.64
Shelby Daum
6W–8L career · 2 lines in 2026
21%79%<1%
2.60
Joan McMaster
11W–14L career · 1 line in 2026
82%18%<1%
2.38
2.5
Anna Garmon
0W–3L career · 2 lines in 2026
not enough data
Sarah Terral
1W–1L career · 2 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.