Teams

Wagon Wheel/Coffindaffer-Junt W4.0T

2026 DALLAS TENNIS 18 & Over ADULT S · S W. Thursday League

23 players · average NTRP 4.00 / TEXAS

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 →
Schedule4 played
2026-06-04vs North Texas RC/Weber W4.0TWon 10
W#3 DoublesAmy Koonsman / Karin Fisher vs Ana Jordan / Mary Feagin4-6, 6-0, 1-0
2026-06-03vs Oak Creek/Jackson-Trousil W4.0TWon 10
W#3 DoublesAmy Dabbous / Natalie Timothy vs Jackie Zarate / Deborah Becker6-1, 6-1
2026-05-28vs The Lakes/Buckalew W4.0TWon 10
W#3 DoublesAmy Dabbous / Daisha Moore vs Karen Buckalew / Teri Doyle7-5, 6-3
2026-05-14vs Canyon Creek/Romness W4.0TLost 01
L#2 DoublesAmy Koonsman / Kelda Rusher vs Kyla Obert / Amy Houstoun1-6, 6-1, 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 standings for S W. Thursday League 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 3.80 estimated across 20 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.

4.07
Eugenia Viejobueno
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
4.00
Marnie Pizzitola
published
3.98
Natalie Timothy
usually #1 Doubles 36%, also #2 Doubles 21% · published
3.91
Thea Junt
usually #3 Doubles 30%, also #2 Doubles 30% · published
3.90
Daniella Bowling
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.86
Christina Perron
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 4
3.85
Edith Kruckmann
usually #3 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
3.85
Anne Doise
usually #3 Doubles 75%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 4
3.83
Daisha Moore
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.80
Tracy Huber
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #1 Singles 33% · published
3.77
Sandi Shipley
usually #2 Doubles 33%, also #2 Singles 33% · published
3.76
3.75
Alexandria Courtney
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.75
Kelda Rusher
usually #1 Doubles 33%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
3.72
Amy Koonsman
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.70
Allyson Garrison
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.70
Leslie Eugenio
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.63
Amy Dabbous
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.59
Suzanne Ortolano
published
3.55
Jo Ann Compton
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Meredith Weckel
published
Shannon Vivian
usually #1 Singles 57%, also #1 Doubles 43% · published
Sophia Coll
usually #2 Singles 57%, also #1 Singles 43% · 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.

Marnie Pizzitola + Edith Kruckmann13369% games+7.3% vs expected
Thea Junt + Kelda Rusher14361% games+2.0% vs expected
Daniella Bowling + Eugenia Viejobueno7074% gamesnot enough data
Christina Perron + Eugenia Viejobueno3253% gamesnot enough data
Marnie Pizzitola + Leslie Eugenio314 matchesnot enough data
Leslie Eugenio + Allyson Garrison404 matchesnot enough data
Edith Kruckmann + Eugenia Viejobueno224 matchesnot enough data
Natalie Timothy + Anne Doise224 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.

Eugenia Viejobueno
38W–9L career · 5 lines in 2026
<1%31%69%
4.07
Marnie Pizzitola
64W–20L career · no lines in 2026
<1%49%51%
4.00
Natalie Timothy
30W–28L career · 12 lines in 2026
<1%56%44%
3.98
Thea Junt
43W–13L career · 10 lines in 2026
<1%74%26%
3.91
4
Daniella Bowling
11W–1L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%77%23%
3.90
4
Christina Perron
11W–12L career · 4 lines in 2026
1%84%16%
3.86
Edith Kruckmann
41W–11L career · 4 lines in 2026
1%85%14%
3.85
4
Anne Doise
12W–21L career · 8 lines in 2026
1%86%14%
3.85
4
Daisha Moore
6W–3L career · 1 line in 2026
1%88%11%
3.83
Tracy Huber
6W–1L career · 3 lines in 2026
2%91%8%
3.80
Sandi Shipley
26W–17L career · 6 lines in 2026
3%92%5%
3.77
4
Jennifer Coffindaffer
127W–78L career · no lines in 2026
3%93%4%
3.76
4
Alexandria Courtney
2W–3L career · type A · 3 lines in 2026
4%93%4%
3.75
Kelda Rusher
40W–21L career · 6 lines in 2026
4%93%4%
3.75
4
Amy Koonsman
16W–10L career · 2 lines in 2026
6%92%2%
3.72
4
Allyson Garrison
13W–10L career · 3 lines in 2026
8%91%2%
3.70
Leslie Eugenio
25W–26L career · 4 lines in 2026
8%91%2%
3.70
4
Amy Dabbous
15W–4L career · 2 lines in 2026
17%83%<1%
3.63
Suzanne Ortolano
9W–13L career · no lines in 2026
27%73%<1%
3.59
Jo Ann Compton
13W–22L career · 5 lines in 2026
35%65%<1%
3.55
Meredith Weckel
2W–2L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Shannon Vivian
12W–15L career · 7 lines in 2026
not enough data
Sophia Coll
12W–2L career · 7 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.