Teams

Madson/Nashville

2025 Adult 18 & Over - Early Start League-Nashville · 3.5 Women - FRI AM

14 players · average NTRP 3.62 / TENNESSEE

View scouting list →
Schedule1 played
2024-11-13vs Korenberg/Ramsey/NashvilleWon 41
L#1 DoublesShari Glickman / Traci Holton vs Renee Anzivino / Christina Beattie3-6, 7-5, 1-0
W#1 SinglesYutong Chen vs Maria Schoonover3-6, 6-1, 1-0
W#2 DoublesBrenda Eckhart / Jennifer Knight vs Courtney Fraser-Mason / Christy Briggs6-4, 6-3
W#2 SinglesElle Ternes vs Navie Birdwell6-2, 6-0
W#3 DoublesJenny Neeley / Heather Brandon vs Jacque Ramsey / Jennifer Frank7-5, 6-0
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 3.5 Women - FRI AM 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 3.49 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.

3.99
Alma Islas
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 4
3.76
Elle Ternes
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 50% · published
3.69
Yutong Chen
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
3.62
Brenda Eckhart
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.49
Traci Holton
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.48
Heather Brandon
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.41
Shari Glickman
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.34
Jennifer Knight
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.33
Dylan Murphy
published
Caroline Polen
published 3.5
3.18
Sarah Dorr
published
3.13
Jenny Neeley
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Andrea Madson
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
Mimi Terry
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.

Shari Glickman + Traci Holton4460% games+13.6% vs expected
Jennifer Knight + Brenda Eckhart7453% games+12.8% vs expected
Jenny Neeley + Heather Brandon7353% games−1.1% vs expected
Traci Holton + Heather Brandon123 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
Alma Islas
17W–4L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%52%48%
3.99
Elle Ternes
7W–3L career · 2 lines in 2025
3%93%4%
3.76
Yutong Chen
6W–5L career · 1 line in 2025
9%90%1%
3.69
4
Brenda Eckhart
13W–5L career · 1 line in 2025
21%79%<1%
3.62
Traci Holton
11W–14L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%53%47%
3.49
Heather Brandon
24W–15L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%54%46%
3.48
Shari Glickman
42W–39L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%74%26%
3.41
Jennifer Knight
13W–5L career · 1 line in 2025
1%86%13%
3.34
Dylan Murphy
1W–4L career · no lines in 2025
1%88%11%
3.33
3.5
Caroline Polen
2W–0L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Sarah Dorr
4W–5L career · no lines in 2025
10%89%1%
3.18
Jenny Neeley
16W–26L career · 1 line in 2025
17%83%<1%
3.13
3
Andrea Madson
1W–1L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Mimi Terry
1W–1L career · no lines in 2025
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.