Teams

Em.Johnson40S

2025 Capital Singles 40 & Over · 4.0 Women

8 players · average NTRP 4.00 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule7 played
2025-07-25vs St.Luther40SLost 12
L#1 SinglesRachael Kiker vs Kara Rectenwald1-6, 2-6
W#2 SinglesButton Hall vs Korri Styers6-2, 6-4
L#3 SinglesJane Williams vs Annette Page6-4, 5-7, 0-1
2025-07-16vs St.Luther40SLost 01
L#1 SinglesJane Williams vs Annette Page6-4, 5-7, 0-1
2025-07-10vs St.Luther40SLost 01
L#2 SinglesAnna Koltchagova vs Kara Rectenwald1-6, 3-6
2025-07-10vs St.Luther40SWon 10
W#3 SinglesButton Hall vs Korri Styers6-1, 6-4
2025-07-02vs St.Luther40SLost 02
L#1 SinglesLisa Buyaki vs Annette Page3-6, 2-6
L#2 SinglesAnna Koltchagova vs Karen Ice1-5
2025-06-29vs St.Luther40SWon 10
W#2 SinglesButton Hall vs Karen Ice6-1, 5-7, 1-0
2025-06-04vs St.Luther40SSplit 11
L#1 SinglesRachael Kiker vs Annette Page4-6, 6-1, 0-1
W#3 SinglesLisa Buyaki vs Korri Styers6-1, 6-2
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 4.0 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 3.69 estimated across 7 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.

4.01
Rachael Kiker
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 4
3.79
Meghan Howard
published
Erika Grenier
published 4
3.71
Jane Williams
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #3 Singles 50% · published 4
3.68
Lisa Buyaki
usually #3 Singles 50%, also #1 Singles 50% · published 4
3.60
Button Hall
usually #2 Singles 67%, also #3 Singles 33% · published 4
3.60
Miranda Harmon
published
3.44
Anna Koltchagova
usually #2 Singles 100% · published 4
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.

Lisa Buyaki + Anna Koltchagova8757% games−1.6% vs expected
Anna Koltchagova + Jane Williams5550% games−2.1% vs expected
Lisa Buyaki + Jane Williams4359% gamesnot enough data
Miranda Harmon + Anna Koltchagova224 matchesnot enough data
Miranda Harmon + Jane Williams044 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.

4
Rachael Kiker
164W–91L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%48%52%
4.01
Meghan Howard
42W–18L career · no lines in 2025
1%94%5%
3.79
4
Erika Grenier
0W–1L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
4
Jane Williams
309W–299L career · 2 lines in 2025
6%93%1%
3.71
4
Lisa Buyaki
145W–112L career · 2 lines in 2025
8%91%1%
3.68
4
Button Hall
223W–223L career · 3 lines in 2025
22%78%<1%
3.60
Miranda Harmon
27W–26L career · no lines in 2025
23%77%<1%
3.60
4
Anna Koltchagova
182W–161L career · 2 lines in 2025
67%33%<1%
3.44

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.