Teams

Horsford/Yes We Can

2025 Adult 18 2.5 Outdoors Social · 2.5W

8 players · average NTRP 2.50 / ST. LOUIS

No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2025-07-05vs Reyes-Teach/Court QueensLost 02
L#1 DoublesErricca Danyell / Yashica Bryant vs Tracy Duggins / Soledad Van Emden0-6, 0-6
L#1 SinglesIvy Alwell vs Lori Fisk0-6, 0-6
2025-05-31vs Reyes-Teach/Court QueensLost 12
L#1 DoublesPamela Chatman / Valerie Nelson Mason vs Tracy Duggins / Lori Fisk3-6, 1-6
W#1 SinglesIvy Alwell vs Ashley Dimercurio2-6, 6-3, 1-0
L#2 DoublesErricca Danyell / Yashica Bryant vs Seember Ityokumbul / Bisiayo Fashemi0-6, 2-6
2025-05-24vs Johnston/Team JohnstonLost 02
L#1 DoublesValerie Nelson Mason / Kayla Sgambelluri vs Devin Schwent / Emily Johnston1-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesPamela Chatman / Ivy Alwell vs Daisy Chen / Rebecca Hare5-7, 7-5, 0-1
2025-05-10vs Reyes-Teach/Court QueensLost 12
L#1 DoublesKayla Sgambelluri / Pamela Chatman vs Sarah Buek / Tracy Duggins0-6, 0-6
W#1 SinglesIvy Alwell vs Ashley Dimercurio3-6, 7-5
L#2 DoublesImani Harris / Erricca Danyell vs Bisiayo Fashemi / Shruthi Iyer0-6, 1-6
2025-04-12vs Johnston/Team JohnstonLost 03
L#1 DoublesErricca Danyell / Kayla Sgambelluri vs Devin Schwent / Capella Sagastume2-6, 0-6
L#1 SinglesPamela Chatman vs Daisy Chen1-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesYashica Bryant / Imani Harris vs Audrey Leonard / Kathryn Fleddermann0-6, 0-6
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 standings4 teams · 2.5W
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Reyes-Teach/Court Queens8324919156
2Johnston/Team Johnston5212920138
3Horsford/Yes We Can1551328177
4Pearlman-Jacobs/Net Ninjas0401224137

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.

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.

Erricca Danyell
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 2.5
Imani Harris
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
Ivy Alwell
usually #1 Singles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 2.5
Kayla Sgambelluri
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Leonard Horsford
published
Pamela Chatman
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 25% · published
Valerie Nelson Mason
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Yashica Bryant
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
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.

2.5
Erricca Danyell
0W–4L career · type S · 4 lines in 2025
not enough data
2.5
Imani Harris
0W–2L career · type S · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
2.5
Ivy Alwell
4W–4L career · 4 lines in 2025
not enough data
Kayla Sgambelluri
0W–3L career · 3 lines in 2025
not enough data
Leonard Horsford
2W–3L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Pamela Chatman
0W–13L career · 4 lines in 2025
not enough data
Valerie Nelson Mason
3W–7L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Yashica Bryant
0W–3L career · 3 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.