Teams

Choros 18s 5.5W Combo Mon PM

2026 Piedmont Combo 18 & Over · 5.5 Women 18 & Over

12 players · average NTRP 2.83 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
L#1 DoublesRebekah East / Raquel Sharkey vs Cozetta Gaines / Renee Hicks5-7, 1-6
W#2 DoublesAllison Chisholm / Alexa Smith vs Jennifer Payne / Ning Li6-3, 6-3
W#3 DoublesAshton Choros / Julia Kanakanui vs Rose Powell / Heather Aherne6-0, 7-6
W#1 DoublesRaquel Sharkey / Rebekah East vs Shannon Roley / Allison Peters1-6, 6-2, 1-0
L#2 DoublesAlexa Smith / Lisa Sullivan vs Sammie Jo McCluskey / Ashley Langley3-6, 6-3, 0-1
W#3 DoublesHannah Miller / Sally Bowman vs Donna Burick / Tammy Milani6-0, 3-6, 1-0
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 5.5 Women 18 & Over 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 2.83 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.

3.17
Alexa Smith
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3
3.09
Sally Bowman
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.99
Rebekah East
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.95
Melanie Burns
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
2.94
Hannah Richey
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.92
Ashton Choros
usually #3 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3
2.89
Raquel Sharkey
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.82
Kiersten Garland
published
2.63
Hannah Miller
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.56
Allison Chisholm
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 2.5
2.55
Julia Kanakanui
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.50
Julia Saguier
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.

Kiersten Garland + Raquel Sharkey314 matchesnot enough data
Rebekah East + Ashton Choros213 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
Alexa Smith
30W–20L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%11%89%
3.17
Sally Bowman
5W–3L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%26%74%
3.09
Rebekah East
26W–33L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%54%46%
2.99
Melanie Burns
27W–28L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%64%36%
2.95
Hannah Richey
18W–4L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%67%33%
2.94
3
Ashton Choros
16W–11L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%72%27%
2.92
Raquel Sharkey
5W–4L career · 2 lines in 2026
78%22%<1%
2.89
Kiersten Garland
5W–3L career · no lines in 2026
90%10%<1%
2.82
Hannah Miller
6W–14L career · 1 line in 2026
17%82%<1%
2.63
2.5
Allison Chisholm
27W–24L career · 2 lines in 2026
0%34%66%
2.56
Julia Kanakanui
3W–7L career · 1 line in 2026
37%63%<1%
2.55
Julia Saguier
32W–25L career · no lines in 2026
0%49%51%
2.50

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.