Teams

Lagoon- Brooks 40+

2025 · 2026 Fall USTA Adult 40 & Over Night League Mont

15 players · average NTRP 3.00 / ALABAMA

View scouting list →
Schedule7 played
2025-11-17Lost 01
L#2 DoublesJulie Knight / Lauren Maloney vs Miriam Scharf / Holly Sharp3-6, 5-7
2025-11-03Lost 01
L#3 DoublesJoan Ensley / Lauren Maloney vs Elizabeth Doyle / Sharon Woernle3-6, 2-6
2025-10-27Lost 01
L#1 DoublesLauren Maloney / DEBRA SLEDGE vs Amanda Senn / Rachel Todd6-7, 4-6
2025-10-20Lost 01
L#1 DoublesLauren Maloney / Angela Hampton vs Daphne Johnston / Jennifer Trott3-6, 3-6
2025-09-29Lost 01
L#3 DoublesLauren Maloney / Rebecca Pines vs Janet Carroll / Rebecca Stewart3-6, 3-6
2025-09-22Lost 01
L#1 SinglesLauren Maloney vs Leslie Robertson7-5, 4-6, 0-1
2025-09-15vs Lagoon Mann 3.5 40 EveningLost 01
L#1 DoublesAngela Hampton / Lauren Maloney vs Bradford Brackin / Leigh Chappelle5-7, 1-6
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 standings4 teams · 2026 Fall USTA Adult 40 & Over Night League Mont
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1MG GARRETT8137819249
2Lagoon Mann 3.5 40 Evening72331231349
3Lagoon Woernle 3.5 Night36162964430
4Lagoon- Brooks 40+0944182493

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 2.90 estimated across 14 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.

3.47
Janice Scott
usually #2 Doubles 42%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
3.22
Lauren Maloney
usually #1 Doubles 43%, also #3 Doubles 29% · published
3.18
Angela Hampton
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 3
3.10
DEBRA SLEDGE
usually #1 Doubles 45%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 3
2.91
Eunyoung Kim
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #3 Doubles 18% · published 3
2.86
Ana Sneeringer
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #2 Singles 17% · published 3
2.82
Rebecca Pines
usually #1 Doubles 39%, also #2 Doubles 31% · published
2.80
Regina Dinger
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 18% · published
2.78
LaVonda Daniels
usually #2 Doubles 39%, also #3 Doubles 31% · published
2.77
Joan Ensley
usually #3 Doubles 40%, also #2 Doubles 28% · published
2.74
Kaye Melnick
usually #2 Doubles 35%, also #1 Doubles 35% · published
2.69
Felicia Brooks
usually #1 Doubles 56%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 3
2.66
Julie Knight
usually #2 Doubles 36%, also #3 Doubles 36% · published
2.64
Jewell Pitts
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published
Valerie Smedley
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 33% · 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.

Janice Scott + DEBRA SLEDGE7255% games+5.6% vs expected
Joan Ensley + Regina Dinger141846% games−0.6% vs expected
Rebecca Pines + Kaye Melnick51243% games−1.4% vs expected
Kaye Melnick + Felicia Brooks0529% games−2.8% vs expected
Regina Dinger + Felicia Brooks0530% games−3.3% vs expected
Regina Dinger + DEBRA SLEDGE4450% games−3.9% vs expected
Rebecca Pines + Felicia Brooks2433% games−6.8% vs expected
Regina Dinger + Jewell Pitts134 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.

Janice Scott
50W–41L career · 12 lines in 2026
60%40%<1%
3.47
Lauren Maloney
8W–41L career · 7 lines in 2026
4%94%2%
3.22
3
Angela Hampton
38W–35L career · 16 lines in 2026
<1%8%92%
3.18
3
DEBRA SLEDGE
46W–31L career · 20 lines in 2026
<1%22%78%
3.10
3
Eunyoung Kim
27W–63L career · 19 lines in 2026
<1%75%24%
2.91
3
Ana Sneeringer
9W–15L career · 6 lines in 2026
<1%86%14%
2.86
Rebecca Pines
20W–57L career · 13 lines in 2026
1%91%8%
2.82
Regina Dinger
52W–69L career · 27 lines in 2026
1%93%6%
2.80
LaVonda Daniels
16W–32L career · 13 lines in 2026
2%94%4%
2.78
Joan Ensley
44W–75L career · 25 lines in 2026
2%94%4%
2.77
Kaye Melnick
17W–59L career · 20 lines in 2026
3%94%2%
2.74
3
Felicia Brooks
24W–63L career · 16 lines in 2026
7%92%1%
2.69
Julie Knight
35W–44L career · 11 lines in 2026
11%88%<1%
2.66
Jewell Pitts
9W–41L career · 15 lines in 2026
14%86%<1%
2.64
Valerie Smedley
3W–14L career · 6 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.