Teams

PHankerson

2022 Capital Summer 18 & Over Tri-Level · 3.0

12 players · average NTRP 3.43 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2022-07-23vs MEveritt 3.0/4.0Won 10
W#1 DoublesChequetta Ann Nobles Hall / Roberta Hadley vs Cathy Joyce / Laura Rendon6-2, 6-2
2022-07-16Lost 01
L#2 DoublesRoberta Hadley / Pamela Hankerson vs Shannon Littleton / Sharon Horton4-6, 2-6
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 3.0 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 3.12 estimated across 11 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.

3.80
Deno Fonville
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published 4
3.48
Ashley McRae
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.38
Roberta Hadley
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.34
3.25
3.08
Pamela Hankerson
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published 3.5
2.99
Michelle Mills
published
2.85
Kristen Gillispie
published
2.84
Laurene Fitzgerald
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 3
2.66
QUEEN HARGROVE
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 30% · published 3
2.62
Vanessa Manuel
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.

Roberta Hadley + Pamela Hankerson121647% games+3.3% vs expected
Pamela Hankerson + Ashley McRae91051% games−0.2% vs expected
QUEEN HARGROVE + Pamela Hankerson31338% games−5.9% vs expected
QUEEN HARGROVE + Ashley McRae91346% games−6.0% vs expected
Deno Fonville + Pamela Hankerson5646% gamesnot enough data
Deno Fonville + QUEEN HARGROVE2740% gamesnot enough data
Deno Fonville + Ashley McRae2544% gamesnot 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
Deno Fonville
132W–132L career · 5 lines in 2022
1%93%6%
3.80
3.5
Ashley McRae
164W–155L career · 6 lines in 2022
<1%57%43%
3.48
3.5
Roberta Hadley
246W–120L career · 2 lines in 2022
<1%83%17%
3.38
Mary Marshall Easley
3W–2L career · no lines in 2022
<1%88%11%
3.34
3.5
Chequetta Ann Nobles Hall
18W–17L career · no lines in 2022
3%95%3%
3.25
3.5
Pamela Hankerson
96W–202L career · type A · 10 lines in 2022
26%74%<1%
3.08
Michelle Mills
16W–12L career · no lines in 2022
<1%54%46%
2.99
Kristen Gillispie
10W–6L career · no lines in 2022
<1%86%13%
2.85
3
Laurene Fitzgerald
101W–157L career · 4 lines in 2022
<1%88%11%
2.84
3
QUEEN HARGROVE
107W–205L career · 10 lines in 2022
11%89%<1%
2.66
Vanessa Manuel
3W–3L career · no lines in 2022
18%82%<1%
2.62
Bernadette David-Yerumo
2W–1L career · no lines in 2022
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.