Teams

Griffith-Walker/18s/3.5/PAC Night

2025 Man · Cov Adult 18 & Over - Women Night

16 players · average NTRP 3.30 / LOUISIANA

View scouting list →

Flight standings for Cov Adult 18 & Over - Women Night 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 3.16 estimated across 6 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.

3.61
Abby Hunt
usually #1 Doubles 71%, also #2 Doubles 18% · published 3.5
3.32
Amber Mata
usually #2 Doubles 46%, also #1 Doubles 36% · published 3.5
3.21
Dana Gegenheimer
usually #3 Doubles 38%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.17
Jennifer Griffith
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #1 Singles 11% · published
3.05
Ana Perdigao
usually #1 Singles 33%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3
2.62
Ashley Neumann
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 42% · published 3
Erin Lorio
usually #1 Doubles 56%, also #1 Singles 17% · published
Jana Phillippi
usually #1 Doubles 29%, also #2 Doubles 29% · published
Jeanne Woodrick
usually #1 Doubles 44%, also #3 Doubles 39% · published
Laura Lucas
usually #1 Doubles 55%, also #2 Doubles 27% · published
Lindsey Rogers
usually #1 Doubles 56%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
Peggy Benit
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 38% · published
Rebecca Sandoz
usually #2 Doubles 38%, also #3 Doubles 29% · published
Regina Knight
usually #2 Doubles 39%, also #3 Doubles 28% · published
Sonia Maltais
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #3 Doubles 40% · published
Stephanie Songy
usually #2 Doubles 48%, also #1 Doubles 24% · 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.

Stephanie Songy + Abby Hunt5062% gamesnot enough data
Erin Lorio + Abby Hunt404 matchesnot enough data
Rebecca Sandoz + Jeanne Woodrick123 matchesnot enough data
Stephanie Songy + Peggy Benit213 matchesnot enough data
Erin Lorio + Amber Mata123 matchesnot enough data
Amber Mata + Abby Hunt213 matchesnot enough data
Jennifer Griffith + Abby Hunt303 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.

3.5
Abby Hunt
36W–9L career · 17 lines in 2025
<1%21%79%
3.61
3.5
Amber Mata
19W–29L career · 22 lines in 2025
1%89%10%
3.32
3.5
Dana Gegenheimer
6W–19L career · type A · 15 lines in 2025
7%91%2%
3.21
Jennifer Griffith
9W–10L career · 9 lines in 2025
11%88%1%
3.17
3
Ana Perdigao
12W–13L career · 11 lines in 2025
<1%37%63%
3.05
3
Ashley Neumann
15W–38L career · 12 lines in 2025
19%80%<1%
2.62
Erin Lorio
22W–17L career · 18 lines in 2025
not enough data
Jana Phillippi
11W–9L career · 6 lines in 2025
not enough data
Jeanne Woodrick
10W–21L career · 17 lines in 2025
not enough data
Laura Lucas
13W–10L career · 11 lines in 2025
not enough data
Lindsey Rogers
10W–5L career · 9 lines in 2025
not enough data
Peggy Benit
8W–7L career · 8 lines in 2025
not enough data
Rebecca Sandoz
29W–18L career · 24 lines in 2025
not enough data
Regina Knight
16W–19L career · 17 lines in 2025
not enough data
Sonia Maltais
2W–8L career · 5 lines in 2025
not enough data
Stephanie Songy
17W–22L career · 21 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.