Teams

CTL18/wilkes/SEP

Combo 18 & Over · 18 & Over Combo Women - 6.5

14 players · average NTRP 3.50 / SOUTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule1 played
2024-10-08vs CTL18/Peterson/CTCWon 21
W#1 DoublesKate Flintom / Rachel Spence vs Beth McCorkle / Lauren Ragsdale6-1, 7-5
L#2 DoublesErika Houghtaling / Susan Dowd vs Helen Grant / Carene Floyd6-3, 3-6, 0-1
W#3 DoublesBridget Armstrong / Kirsten Serba vs Ann Prince / Diane Junis7-5, 6-7, 1-0
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 18 & Over Combo Women - 6.5 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 3.05 estimated across 11 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.

3.64
Danielle Peeler
published 3.5
3.31
Teri Colden
published
3.25
Tiffany Feaster
published
3.25
Rachel Spence
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.19
Lauren Pittman
published
3.17
Gloria Caballero
published
3.13
Bridget Armstrong
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.08
Susanna Grizzell
published
2.57
Sarah Hood
published
2.55
Lissa Green
published
2.44
Fran Wilkes
published
Gracyn Brandon
published
Sheri Hahn
published
Susan Dowd
usually #2 Doubles 100% · 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.

Lauren Pittman + Rachel Spence10954% games+7.8% vs expected
Rachel Spence + Bridget Armstrong5356% games+3.6% vs expected
Rachel Spence + Gracyn Brandon2453% games−2.1% vs expected
Bridget Armstrong + Fran Wilkes7552% games−8.3% vs expected
Susanna Grizzell + Tiffany Feaster3349% gamesnot enough data
Susanna Grizzell + Rachel Spence2346% gamesnot enough data
Rachel Spence + Gloria Caballero2346% gamesnot enough data
Bridget Armstrong + Gloria Caballero134 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
Danielle Peeler
48W–19L career · no lines in 2023
<1%16%84%
3.64
Teri Colden
43W–66L career · no lines in 2023
91%9%<1%
3.31
Tiffany Feaster
16W–35L career · no lines in 2023
4%93%4%
3.25
Rachel Spence
79W–71L career · 1 line in 2023
4%93%3%
3.25
Lauren Pittman
47W–16L career · no lines in 2023
9%90%1%
3.19
Gloria Caballero
55W–73L career · no lines in 2023
11%88%1%
3.17
3.5
Bridget Armstrong
74W–60L career · type A · 1 line in 2023
17%82%<1%
3.13
Susanna Grizzell
11W–25L career · no lines in 2023
29%71%<1%
3.08
Sarah Hood
38W–36L career · no lines in 2023
30%70%<1%
2.57
Lissa Green
28W–105L career · no lines in 2023
35%65%<1%
2.55
Fran Wilkes
13W–23L career · no lines in 2023
66%34%<1%
2.44
Gracyn Brandon
13W–39L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Sheri Hahn
26W–37L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Susan Dowd
0W–1L career · 1 line in 2023
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.