Teams

Vaughn 18s 2.5W Singles Th PM

2026 Piedmont Singles 18+ · 2.5 Women Singles

6 players · average NTRP 2.50 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule8 played
2026-07-23vs Creasy/GRETA 18s Singles 2.5W Th PMSplit 11
L#1 SinglesAllison Chisholm vs Jenifer Checo6-7, 2-6
W#2 SinglesHolden Ehlinger vs Jordan Creasy6-7, 6-3, 1-0
W#1 SinglesBeth McQuaid vs Carla Vilton6-0, 6-0
W#2 SinglesAllison Chisholm vs Annette Bagnoli6-1, 7-5
2026-07-09vs Creasy/GRETA 18s Singles 2.5W Th PMSplit 11
W#1 SinglesBeth McQuaid vs Annette Bagnoli6-0, 2-6, 1-0
L#2 SinglesJulia Saguier vs Jenifer Checo6-3, 2-6, 1-0
L#1 SinglesAllison Peters vs Tia Opyd6-2, 4-6, 0-1
W#2 SinglesBeth McQuaid vs Sylwia Foster6-0, 4-6, 1-0
W#3 SinglesJulia Saguier vs Caroline Jackson6-0, 6-2
W#1 SinglesAllison Chisholm vs Carla Vilton6-1, 6-0
L#2 SinglesJulia Saguier vs Jenifer Checo6-2, 1-6, 0-1
W#3 SinglesMeredith Vaughn vs Chelsea Ward6-1, 6-2
W#2 SinglesMeredith Vaughn vs Jordan Creasy6-4, 6-1
W#3 SinglesHolden Ehlinger vs Caroline Jackson6-4
L#1 SinglesBeth McQuaid vs Tia Opyd1-6, 7-5, 0-1
W#2 SinglesAllison Chisholm vs Sylwia Foster6-2, 6-1
W#3 SinglesJulia Saguier vs Carla Vilton6-0, 6-0
W#1 SinglesAllison Peters vs Caroline Jackson6-2, 6-0
W#2 SinglesBeth McQuaid vs Annette Bagnoli7-5, 6-4
W#3 SinglesAllison Chisholm vs Chelsea Ward6-1, 6-3
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 standings2 teams · 2.5 Women Singles
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Vaughn 18s 2.5W Singles Th PM7117718145
2Creasy/GRETA 18s Singles 2.5W Th PM1771739252

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 2.47 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.

2.61
Allison Peters
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 2.5
2.56
Allison Chisholm
usually #2 Singles 44%, also #1 Singles 44% · published 2.5
2.50
Julia Saguier
usually #3 Singles 71%, also #2 Singles 29% · published
2.47
Beth McQuaid
usually #1 Singles 60%, also #2 Singles 40% · published 2.5
2.40
Meredith Vaughn
usually #3 Singles 75%, also #2 Singles 25% · published
2.28
Holden Ehlinger
usually #3 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 50% · 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.

Julia Saguier + Meredith Vaughn123 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.

2.5
Allison Peters
15W–10L career · type S · 2 lines in 2026
0%21%79%
2.61
2.5
Allison Chisholm
27W–24L career · 9 lines in 2026
0%34%66%
2.56
Julia Saguier
32W–25L career · 7 lines in 2026
0%49%51%
2.50
2.5
Beth McQuaid
9W–15L career · 5 lines in 2026
0%59%41%
2.47
Meredith Vaughn
7W–19L career · 4 lines in 2026
0%76%24%
2.40
Holden Ehlinger
2W–2L career · 2 lines in 2026
0%94%6%
2.28

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.