Teams

Mo/META

2026 Adult 18 & Over-META · 3.0 Women

12 players · average NTRP 3.00 / TENNESSEE

View scouting list →
Schedule7 played
2026-05-19vs Janiszewski/METAWon 40
W#1 DoublesJane Dean / Kirsten Hoskins vs Debbie Pencarinha / Joan Hagood4-6, 3-2
W#1 SinglesEve Little Bradford vs Heidi Kasten6-2, 6-1
W#2 DoublesMadga Cox / Regan Jordan vs Kelly Kattesh / Jessica Alzamora6-2, 6-0
W#3 DoublesAnita Jilton / Keo Jur vs Barb Janiszewski / Anneke Self6-1, 6-4
2026-04-19vs Janiszewski/METAWon 40
W#1 DoublesJu Mo / Makie Kordamiri vs Anneke Self / Christina Betancourt6-1, 7-5
W#1 SinglesMillie Pendola vs Heidi Kasten6-3, 6-0
W#2 DoublesJane Dean / Kirsten Hoskins vs Kim Cartier / Jessica Alzamora6-0, 6-0
W#3 DoublesRegan Jordan / Kari Holt vs Janice Kasten / Margaret Wells6-0, 6-1
2026-04-12vs Janiszewski/METAWon 40
W#1 DoublesLynne Little / Eve Little Bradford vs Christina Betancourt / Debbie Pencarinha6-1, 6-2
W#1 SinglesMillie Pendola vs Kelly Kattesh6-2, 6-2
W#2 DoublesKirsten Hoskins / Jane Dean vs Barb Janiszewski / Anneke Self6-1, 7-6
W#3 DoublesKari Holt / Regan Jordan vs Margaret Wells / Kim Cartier6-1, 6-1
2026-04-08vs Janiszewski/METAWon 40
W#1 DoublesLynne Little / Eve Little Bradford vs Christina Betancourt / Debbie Pencarinha6-1, 6-2
W#1 SinglesKari Holt vs Heidi Kasten6-0, 6-0
W#2 DoublesRegan Jordan / Ju Mo vs Joan Hagood / Barb Janiszewski6-1, 6-1
W#3 DoublesMadga Cox / Millie Pendola vs Janice Kasten / Margaret Wells6-2, 6-1
2026-04-01vs Janiszewski/METAWon 40
W#1 DoublesKirsten Hoskins / Jane Dean vs Joan Hagood / Christina Betancourt6-2, 6-1
W#1 SinglesJu Mo vs Kelly Kattesh6-0, 6-2
W#2 DoublesEve Little Bradford / Lynne Little vs Barb Janiszewski / Debbie Pencarinha6-2, 6-1
W#3 DoublesKeo Jur / Anita Jilton vs Janice Kasten / Margaret Wells6-1, 6-0
2026-03-25vs Janiszewski/METAWon 31
W#1 DoublesAnita Jilton / Madga Cox vs Kelly Kattesh / Christina Betancourt6-1, 6-2
L#1 SinglesMillie Pendola vs Bettina Chirica3-6, 2-6
W#2 DoublesKeo Jur / Makie Kordamiri vs Heidi Kasten / Janice Kasten6-0, 6-1
W#3 DoublesRegan Jordan / Kari Holt vs Joan Hagood / Barb Janiszewski7-5, 6-4
2026-03-15vs Janiszewski/METAWon 40
W#1 DoublesLynne Little / Eve Little Bradford vs Barb Janiszewski / Bettina Chirica6-2, 6-1
W#1 SinglesMadga Cox vs Jessica Alzamora6-2, 6-1
W#2 DoublesRegan Jordan / Keo Jur vs Joan Hagood / Anneke Self6-2, 6-0
W#3 DoublesMakie Kordamiri / Anita Jilton vs Christina Betancourt / Janice Kasten6-1, 6-3
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 standings2 teams · 3.0 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Mo/META70271398
2Janiszewski/META0712754331

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 2.99 estimated across 12 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.

3.18
Eve Little Bradford
usually #1 Doubles 38%, also #2 Singles 25% · published 3
3.17
Ju Mo
usually #3 Doubles 40%, also #1 Doubles 20% · published
3.14
Lynne Little
usually #1 Doubles 43%, also #3 Doubles 29% · published
3.09
Madga Cox
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.09
Jane Dean
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.06
Keo Jur
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
3.03
Anita Jilton
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3
3.00
Regan Jordan
usually #2 Doubles 44%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
2.92
Makie Kordamiri
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
2.86
Kirsten Hoskins
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
2.72
Millie Pendola
usually #1 Singles 75%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
2.69
Kari Holt
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #1 Singles 17% · 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.

Lynne Little + Eve Little Bradford9170% games+13.7% vs expected
Jane Dean + Kirsten Hoskins5447% games−6.5% vs expected
Lynne Little + Jane Dean404 matchesnot enough data
Lynne Little + Madga Cox404 matchesnot enough data
Anita Jilton + Regan Jordan213 matchesnot enough data
Anita Jilton + Ju Mo303 matchesnot enough data
Anita Jilton + Keo Jur213 matchesnot enough data
Regan Jordan + Ju Mo213 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.

3
Eve Little Bradford
25W–6L career · 7 lines in 2026
<1%8%92%
3.18
Ju Mo
29W–11L career · 5 lines in 2026
<1%10%90%
3.17
Lynne Little
36W–21L career · 7 lines in 2026
<1%14%86%
3.14
Madga Cox
26W–10L career · 6 lines in 2026
<1%25%75%
3.09
Jane Dean
19W–17L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%25%75%
3.09
Keo Jur
17W–14L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%33%67%
3.06
3
Anita Jilton
36W–24L career · 6 lines in 2026
<1%40%60%
3.03
Regan Jordan
20W–25L career · 9 lines in 2026
<1%51%49%
3.00
Makie Kordamiri
12W–11L career · 6 lines in 2026
<1%72%28%
2.92
Kirsten Hoskins
9W–19L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%86%13%
2.86
Millie Pendola
3W–1L career · 4 lines in 2026
5%94%1%
2.72
Kari Holt
13W–12L career · 6 lines in 2026
8%91%1%
2.69

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.