Teams

Sa.Forman18C

2025 Capital Combo 18 & Over · 5.5 Women

11 players · average NTRP 2.88 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2025-09-28vs Je.Tyndall18C5.5Split 11
W#1 DoublesMolly Lewis / Kelsey Brandt vs Melissa Rini / Kelly Nels6-4, 6-3
L#2 DoublesSarah Forman / Autumn Beam vs Courtney Peterson / Thassia Roschel0-6, 4-6
2025-09-14vs St.Gupton18CWon 10
W#2 DoublesKelsey Brandt / Kimberly Love vs Stuart Gupton / Elizabeth Schacht6-0, 3-6, 1-0
2025-09-13vs La.Kane18C5.5Won 20
W#2 DoublesKelsey Brandt / Kimberly Love vs Emilie Moses / Casey Novak6-2, 7-5
W#3 DoublesAutumn Beam / Sarah Forman vs Melis Hamevi Bukey / Mari Stratemeier6-1, 6-3
2025-08-24vs Sa.Highsmith18CLost 02
L#1 DoublesMolly Lewis / Kelsey Brandt vs CarolAnn Wiggs / Betsy Carr2-6, 6-7
L#2 DoublesSarah Forman / Autumn Beam vs Sally Highsmith / Bess Pitt2-6, 4-6
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 5.5 Women 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 2.68 estimated across 10 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.

3.06
Kelsey Brandt
usually #1 Doubles 38%, also #2 Doubles 38% · published 3
2.96
Erica Coln
published 3
2.79
Sarah Forman
published
2.74
Autumn Beam
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 30% · published 2.5
2.69
Christina Hyde
published 3
2.67
Blair Cassimus
published 3
2.66
Allison Shipe
published 3
2.56
Allison Dugan
published 3
2.37
Katie Weagel
published
2.30
Hollyanne Compton
published 2.5
Sara Zahler
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.

Allison Shipe + Erica Coln1446% games+5.6% vs expected
Sarah Forman + Kelsey Brandt404 matchesnot enough data
Autumn Beam + Kelsey Brandt314 matchesnot enough data
Allison Dugan + Erica Coln213 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
Kelsey Brandt
43W–18L career · 8 lines in 2025
<1%32%68%
3.06
3
Erica Coln
9W–5L career · no lines in 2025
<1%61%39%
2.96
Sarah Forman
17W–14L career · no lines in 2025
1%93%6%
2.79
2.5
Autumn Beam
47W–32L career · 10 lines in 2025
0%3%97%
2.74
3
Christina Hyde
2W–1L career · no lines in 2025
8%91%1%
2.69
3
Blair Cassimus
4W–6L career · no lines in 2025
9%90%1%
2.67
3
Allison Shipe
5W–8L career · no lines in 2025
12%88%<1%
2.66
3
Allison Dugan
8W–9L career · no lines in 2025
33%67%<1%
2.56
Katie Weagel
7W–9L career · no lines in 2025
0%84%16%
2.37
2.5
Hollyanne Compton
5W–8L career · type S · no lines in 2025
0%94%6%
2.30
Sara Zahler
1W–0L 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.