Teams

Cox/Greeneville

2026 Adult 55 & Over-Greeneville · 3.5 Women

7 players · average NTRP 3.50 / TENNESSEE

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2026-05-20vs Smead/GreenevilleLost 02
L#1 DoublesHolly Grammer / Sarah LaGuardia vs Pamela Smead / Angela Cutshall1-6, 5-7
L#2 DoublesRegan Jordan / Holli Cox vs Cathy Holloway / Carrie Cave2-6, 6-2, 0-1
2026-05-19vs Smead/GreenevilleLost 02
L#1 DoublesHolli Cox / Holly Grammer vs Pamela Smead / Angela Cutshall4-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesShannon Hinkle / Sarah LaGuardia vs Kathy Joy / Lara Neumann6-4, 0-6, 0-1
2026-05-13vs Smead/GreenevilleLost 02
L#1 DoublesDana Wenzell / Regan Jordan vs Kathy Joy / Cathy Holloway6-7, 1-6
L#2 DoublesHolli Cox / Shannon Hinkle vs Angela Cutshall / Lara Neumann6-4, 3-6, 0-1
2026-05-06vs Smead/GreenevilleSplit 11
W#1 DoublesLynne Little / Sarah LaGuardia vs Carrie Cave / Kathy Joy3-6, 6-4, 1-0
L#2 DoublesShannon Hinkle / Regan Jordan vs Angela Cutshall / Lara Neumann3-6, 2-6
2026-04-22vs Smead/GreenevilleSplit 11
W#1 DoublesHolli Cox / Shannon Hinkle vs Barbara Woods / Carrie Cave7-6, 7-6
L#2 DoublesDana Wenzell / Regan Jordan vs Pamela Smead / Angela Cutshall1-6, 4-6
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 standings1 teams · 3.5 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Cox/Greeneville1441123151

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 3.18 estimated across 7 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.

3.51
Holli Cox
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.23
Shannon Hinkle
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published
3.17
Sarah LaGuardia
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.16
Lynne Little
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.15
Dana Wenzell
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.06
Holly Grammer
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.99
Regan Jordan
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #1 Doubles 25% · 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.

Shannon Hinkle + Sarah LaGuardia0532% games−13.9% vs expected
Lynne Little + Sarah LaGuardia224 matchesnot enough data
Sarah LaGuardia + Holly Grammer134 matchesnot enough data
Shannon Hinkle + Holly Grammer213 matchesnot enough data
Regan Jordan + Dana Wenzell033 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.

Holli Cox
10W–12L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%47%53%
3.51
Shannon Hinkle
14W–18L career · 4 lines in 2026
5%92%3%
3.23
Sarah LaGuardia
13W–19L career · 3 lines in 2026
11%88%1%
3.17
Lynne Little
31W–13L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%13%87%
3.16
3.5
Dana Wenzell
4W–17L career · 2 lines in 2026
14%86%1%
3.15
Holly Grammer
9W–13L career · 2 lines in 2026
35%65%<1%
3.06
Regan Jordan
16W–22L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%53%47%
2.99

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.