Teams

Canebrake 18+ 6.5 Combo

2026 Combo Doubles 18&Over-PB · Women 6.5

8 players · average NTRP 3.25 / MISSISSIPPI

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 →
Schedule3 played
2026-09-03vs LCC - Smith - 6.5 Combos 18sWon 30
W#1 DoublesMary Jo Goodin / Heather Moss vs Marlee Carney / Alex Arledge6-3, 6-3
W#2 DoublesJULIE BAUGH / Paige Sobiesk vs Aly Smith / Mary Carole Kiewit6-2, 6-1
W#3 DoublesSonya Woodard / Paula Morris vs Jessica Campbell / Jillian Taylor6-4, 3-6, 1-0
2026-08-27vs Stetelman 8.5Won 20
W#1 DoublesAllison Mayers / Hannah Gibson vs Elizabeth Schwartz / Carly Wise6-3, 6-3
W#2 DoublesAshley Davidson / Paige Sobiesk vs Shaye Caldwell / Brandi Harper6-3, 6-1
2026-08-02vs Vance-18+ 6.5 ComboWon 30
W#1 DoublesHannah Gibson / Heather Moss vs Beth Rodgers / Kaitlyn Hennessey6-1, 6-0
W#2 DoublesJULIE BAUGH / Bekah Baugh vs Melissa McDaniel / Hollie Parker6-3, 6-3
W#3 DoublesPaige Sobiesk / Susan Hamlett vs Nema Hinchey / Nicole Toups6-2, 4-6, 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 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 3.19 estimated across 8 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.

3.52
Hannah Gibson
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.32
Sonya Woodard
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.30
Bekah Baugh
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.21
Heather Moss
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
3.19
JULIE BAUGH
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3
3.02
McKenzie Woodard
published
3.01
Paige Sobiesk
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
2.94
Susan Hamlett
usually #3 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.

JULIE BAUGH + Bekah Baugh13271% games+20.0% vs expected
Heather Moss + Hannah Gibson7179% games+14.5% vs expected
JULIE BAUGH + Susan Hamlett3258% gamesnot enough data
JULIE BAUGH + Heather Moss404 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
Hannah Gibson
42W–6L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%44%56%
3.52
Sonya Woodard
32W–20L career · 1 line in 2026
1%91%8%
3.32
3.5
Bekah Baugh
30W–10L career · 1 line in 2026
1%93%6%
3.30
3
Heather Moss
46W–17L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%5%95%
3.21
3
JULIE BAUGH
58W–8L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%7%93%
3.19
McKenzie Woodard
27W–10L career · no lines in 2026
42%58%<1%
3.02
Paige Sobiesk
3W–1L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%48%52%
3.01
Susan Hamlett
45W–19L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%67%33%
2.94

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.