Teams

Sugar Creek (Tricinda Waites)*

USTA Atlanta Summer - 18 & Over Business Women - Low · 4.0 Low (Check Eligibility List) - Monica Murray

18 players · average NTRP 3.90 / GEORGIA

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 →

Flight standings for 4.0 Low (Check Eligibility List) - Monica Murray 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 3.68 estimated across 16 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.

3.91
Cotonya Peterson
published 4
3.89
Sherian Cork
published
3.89
Akisha Paige-Bey
published 4
3.87
Diane Hamilton
published 4
3.87
Kelly Douglass
published
3.80
Tammy Neal
published
3.80
Trinidad Osselyn
published
Christine Pitts
published 4
3.70
Tricinda Waites
published
3.68
Pamela Keys
published
3.68
Preethi Rosslow
published
3.67
Gina Woods
published
3.55
Erica Ankrom
published
3.53
Jordan Browne
published
3.49
Jamila Fordham
published
3.37
Carolyn Watkins
published 3.5
3.25
Melissa MacK
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.

Cotonya Peterson + Tricinda Waites8459% games+4.8% vs expected
Tammy Neal + Pamela Keys8164% games+2.1% vs expected
Trinidad Osselyn + Tammy Neal3258% games+1.8% vs expected
Cotonya Peterson + Pamela Keys5261% games−1.6% vs expected
Diane Hamilton + Tricinda Waites8849% games−2.8% vs expected
Jamila Fordham + Tricinda Waites4250% games−8.1% vs expected
Cotonya Peterson + Diane Hamilton6450% games−8.5% vs expected
Donna Douglass-Williams + Melissa MacK123 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.

4
Cotonya Peterson
36W–17L career · no lines in 2025
<1%74%25%
3.91
Sherian Cork
12W–1L career · no lines in 2025
<1%78%22%
3.89
4
Akisha Paige-Bey
20W–10L career · no lines in 2025
<1%79%21%
3.89
4
Diane Hamilton
52W–19L career · no lines in 2025
<1%83%17%
3.87
Kelly Douglass
11W–0L career · no lines in 2025
<1%83%17%
3.87
Tammy Neal
36W–10L career · no lines in 2025
2%91%8%
3.80
Trinidad Osselyn
17W–16L career · no lines in 2025
2%91%8%
3.80
4
Christine Pitts
3W–2L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Tricinda Waites
32W–22L career · no lines in 2025
7%91%2%
3.70
Pamela Keys
46W–26L career · no lines in 2025
10%89%1%
3.68
Preethi Rosslow
14W–12L career · no lines in 2025
10%89%1%
3.68
Gina Woods
28W–25L career · no lines in 2025
12%88%1%
3.67
Erica Ankrom
50W–16L career · no lines in 2025
<1%35%65%
3.55
Jordan Browne
19W–5L career · no lines in 2025
<1%42%58%
3.53
Jamila Fordham
33W–17L career · no lines in 2025
53%47%<1%
3.49
3.5
Carolyn Watkins
14W–40L career · no lines in 2025
<1%83%17%
3.37
Donna Douglass-Williams
11W–12L career · no lines in 2025
3%93%4%
3.25
Melissa MacK
8W–10L career · no 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.