Teams

Bouche-Greer/18s/3.5-2.5/PAC

2026 Man · Cov Tri Level 18 & Over - Women Night

15 players · average NTRP 3.05 / LOUISIANA

View scouting list →
Schedule
Flight standings6 teams · Cov Tri Level 18 & Over - Women Night
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Roy/18s/3.5-2.5/SC9125517213
2Bouche-Greer/18s/3.5-2.5/PAC82191124224
3Bonanno-Burns/18s/3.5-2.5/PAC55161430243
4Guillet/18s/3.5-2.5/COQ46151534259
5Anzalone/18s/3.5-2.5/NC2882246315
6Wallace/18s/3.5-2.5/BC2872349331

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 2.89 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.

3.64
Abby Hunt
usually #1 Doubles 73%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published 3.5
3.27
Amber Mata
usually #1 Doubles 43%, also #2 Doubles 39% · published 3.5
3.26
Brooke Brown
usually #1 Doubles 53%, also #2 Doubles 26% · published 3.5
3.22
Erin Lorio
usually #1 Doubles 53%, also #2 Doubles 26% · published 3.5
3.06
Danielle Roussel
usually #1 Doubles 44%, also #2 Doubles 44% · published 3.5
2.83
Amy St. Romain
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 39% · published 3
2.76
Jamie Wynn
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 30% · published 2.5
2.41
Brittany Hesch
usually #2 Doubles 38%, also #3 Doubles 38% · published 2.5
2.37
Ellie Bourgeois
usually #3 Doubles 36%, also #2 Doubles 27% · published 2.5
2.10
Elizabeth Klocek
usually #1 Doubles 47%, also #3 Doubles 24% · published 2.5
Jennifer Steen
usually #2 Doubles 39%, also #3 Doubles 22% · published
Katie DiMaria
usually #3 Doubles 43%, also #1 Doubles 29% · published
Kay Byrd
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 29% · published
Taylor Bouche
usually #2 Doubles 43%, also #3 Doubles 24% · published
Taylor Fortune
usually #2 Doubles 52%, also #3 Doubles 29% · 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.

Erin Lorio + Abby Hunt6068% gamesnot enough data
Jamie Wynn + Taylor Fortune5083% gamesnot enough data
Erin Lorio + Brooke Brown404 matchesnot enough data
Katie DiMaria + Taylor Fortune314 matchesnot enough data
Erin Lorio + Amber Mata123 matchesnot enough data
Amber Mata + Abby Hunt213 matchesnot enough data
Brooke Brown + Taylor Bouche303 matchesnot enough data
Elizabeth Klocek + Kay Byrd033 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.

3.5
Abby Hunt
45W–9L career · 30 lines in 2026
<1%14%86%
3.64
3.5
Amber Mata
22W–29L career · 28 lines in 2026
2%94%4%
3.27
3.5
Brooke Brown
28W–6L career · 18 lines in 2026
2%94%3%
3.26
3.5
Erin Lorio
28W–19L career · 19 lines in 2026
5%94%1%
3.22
3.5
Danielle Roussel
16W–11L career · 16 lines in 2026
32%67%<1%
3.06
3
Amy St. Romain
16W–13L career · 18 lines in 2026
1%90%10%
2.83
2.5
Jamie Wynn
23W–3L career · type S · 20 lines in 2026
0%2%98%
2.76
2.5
Brittany Hesch
6W–9L career · type S · 8 lines in 2026
0%75%25%
2.41
2.5
Ellie Bourgeois
5W–6L career · type S · 11 lines in 2026
0%84%16%
2.37
2.5
Elizabeth Klocek
10W–24L career · 17 lines in 2026
0%>99%<1%
2.10
Jennifer Steen
13W–19L career · 18 lines in 2026
not enough data
Katie DiMaria
10W–14L career · 14 lines in 2026
not enough data
Kay Byrd
9W–18L career · 14 lines in 2026
not enough data
Taylor Bouche
24W–7L career · 21 lines in 2026
not enough data
Taylor Fortune
34W–10L career · 21 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.