Teams

Fisher

2026 Adult 40 & Over-SW · Women 4.0

9 players · average NTRP 4.00 / MISSISSIPPI

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2026-04-11vs Swedenburg 40+ 4.0Won 20
W#1 DoublesDiane Hay / Mary Miller vs Janice Reynolds / Karen Vickers8-1
W#2 DoublesCarolyn Stephens / Heather Watts vs Mary Swedenburg / Angela McCoy8-3
2026-03-21vs Swedenburg 40+ 4.0Won 20
W#1 DoublesNancy Fisher / Terrie Hall vs Cherie Ivey / Susan McCarty8-3
W#2 DoublesCarolyn Stephens / Heather Watts vs Janice Reynolds / Karen Vickers8-3
2026-03-21vs Swedenburg 40+ 4.0Lost 02
L#1 DoublesDiane Hay / Mary Miller vs Kim Prestridge / Kim Cadenhead6-8
L#2 DoublesCarolyn Stephens / Heather Watts vs Mary Swedenburg / Angela McCoy6-8
2026-03-13vs Swedenburg 40+ 4.0Won 21
W#1 DoublesTaylor Berry / Megan Case vs Libby Jones / Leah Ellis8-4
W#2 DoublesCarol Easley / Jennifer Do vs Debra Riley / Florencia Meyer8-2
L#3 DoublesDiane Hay / Mary Miller vs Kim Prestridge / Kim Cadenhead3-8
2026-03-13vs Swedenburg 40+ 4.0Won 30
W#1 DoublesTaylor Berry / Megan Case vs Cherie Ivey / Libby Jones8-6
W#2 DoublesNancy Fisher / Terrie Hall vs Leah Ellis / Susan McCarty8-5
W#3 DoublesCarol Easley / Jennifer Do vs Debra Riley / Florencia Meyer8-4
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 Women 4.0 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 3.72 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.

3.93
Diane Hay
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.92
Carolyn Stephens
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
Carol Easley
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.72
Megan Case
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.70
Taylor Berry
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.65
Heather Watts
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.42
Nancy Fisher
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
Rhonda Williams
published
Terrie Hall
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · 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.

Heather Watts + Carolyn Stephens4264% games+5.0% vs expected
Nancy Fisher + Terrie Hall4157% games+0.8% vs expected
Carol Easley + Terrie Hall4158% games−4.4% vs expected
Carol Easley + Nancy Fisher224 matchesnot enough data
Nancy Fisher + Carolyn Stephens134 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
Diane Hay
17W–5L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%71%28%
3.93
4
Carolyn Stephens
29W–8L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%72%28%
3.92
4
Carol Easley
17W–3L career · 2 lines in 2026
not enough data
Megan Case
15W–3L career · 2 lines in 2026
4%94%2%
3.72
Taylor Berry
11W–11L career · 2 lines in 2026
6%93%1%
3.70
4
Heather Watts
9W–6L career · 3 lines in 2026
12%88%<1%
3.65
Nancy Fisher
12W–12L career · 2 lines in 2026
74%26%<1%
3.42
Rhonda Williams
17W–26L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Terrie Hall
10W–4L 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.