Teams

LCTA18/Carr/Doty

Other 18 & Over Singles League · Women 2.5

5 players · average NTRP 2.50 / SOUTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule7 played
2026-07-11vs LCTA18/Sweet/CTCLost 01
L#1 SinglesLiz Hazen vs Katie Beaudette4-6, 0-6
2026-07-02vs LCTA18/Cherin/DICLost 02
L#1 SinglesCatherine Tekac vs Katelin Mccrory1-6, 2-6
L#2 SinglesPamela W Carr vs Lauren Vriesinga0-6, 1-6
2026-06-19vs LCTA18/Stinson/Hanahan Hawks NestLost 03
L#1 SinglesLiz Hazen vs Sharlene Douthit3-6, 2-6
L#2 SinglesCatherine Tekac vs Jasmine Pan0-6, 1-6
L#3 SinglesPamela W Carr vs Gina Cox2-6, 6-4, 0-1
2026-05-30vs LCTA18/Sweet/CTCLost 03
L#1 SinglesCatherine Tekac vs Meghan Casey2-6, 1-6
L#2 SinglesLiz Hazen vs Julie Smith0-6, 1-6
L#3 SinglesPam Inabinett vs Katie Beaudette6-1, 0-6, 0-1
2026-05-27vs LCTA18/Cherin/DICLost 03
L#1 SinglesNatalie Coon vs Kirstin Hearn0-6, 0-6
L#2 SinglesPamela W Carr vs Alexandra Cherin2-6, 1-6
L#3 SinglesCatherine Tekac vs Katelin Mccrory2-6, 2-6
2026-05-03vs LCTA18/Stinson/Hanahan Hawks NestLost 03
L#1 SinglesCatherine Tekac vs Sharlene Douthit0-6, 0-6
L#2 SinglesLiz Hazen vs Courtney Carter1-6, 1-6
L#3 SinglesPam Inabinett vs Rebecca Hasegawa4-6, 3-6
2026-04-26vs LCTA18/Huennekens/CTCLost 02
L#1 SinglesPamela W Carr vs Hampton Williams0-6, 1-6
L#2 SinglesCatherine Tekac vs Chelsea Heidt1-6, 7-5, 0-1
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 standings5 teams · Women 2.5
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1LCTA18/Huennekens/CTC7118616153
2LCTA18/Stinson/Hanahan Hawks Nest5316821171
3LCTA18/Sweet/CTC5315921176
4LCTA18/Cherin/DIC35111328189
5LCTA18/Carr/Doty0802448283

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 2.04 estimated across 5 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.

2.13
Pam Inabinett
usually #3 Singles 100% · published
2.03
Liz Hazen
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 50% · published
2.03
Natalie Coon
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
2.01
Pamela W Carr
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #1 Singles 25% · published
1.99
Catherine Tekac
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 33% · published 2.5
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.

Pamela W Carr + Catherine Tekac3351% games+10.6% vs expected
Pamela W Carr + Liz Hazen123 matchesnot enough data
Pam Inabinett + Natalie Coon123 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.

Pam Inabinett
7W–16L career · 2 lines in 2026
0%>99%<1%
2.13
Liz Hazen
2W–25L career · 4 lines in 2026
0%>99%<1%
2.03
Natalie Coon
1W–8L career · 1 line in 2026
0%>99%<1%
2.03
Pamela W Carr
16W–51L career · 4 lines in 2026
0%>99%<1%
2.01
2.5
Catherine Tekac
9W–22L career · 6 lines in 2026
0%>99%<1%
1.99

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.