Teams

CCox/KEggers (Raintree)

2024 Singles 18 & Over League · 18 & Over Singles 3.0 Women

9 players · average NTRP 3.12 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule7 played
2024-07-31vs KBeck (Jeff Adams)Lost 01
L#2 SinglesMolly Clune vs Kathryn Pride3-6, 6-4, 0-1
2024-07-09vs SAnderson (Queens)Split 11
W#2 SinglesNiki Koesel vs Sarah Anderson6-4, 6-0
L#3 SinglesKimberlee Curley vs Heidi Casey7-5, 4-6, 0-1
2024-06-25vs MJBurns (Jeff Adams)Won 10
W#3 SinglesKimberlee Curley vs Grace Keiffer6-2, 6-0
2024-06-18vs MGross (JCC)Won 10
W#1 SinglesNiki Koesel vs Lisa Cosolito6-1, 6-2
2024-06-11vs EAnderson (Park Road)Won 10
W#2 SinglesNiki Koesel vs Devon Fuller6-1, 7-5
2024-06-04vs JKarsek (Carmel)Lost 01
L#2 SinglesMolly Clune vs Kelli Narveson7-5, 3-6, 0-1
2024-05-21Won 10
W#3 SinglesMolly Clune vs N/A6-0, 6-0
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 Singles 3.0 Women 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 9 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.

3.28
Suzanne Austin
published
3.21
Caroline Cox
published 3.5
3.12
Katie Eggers
published
3.08
Molly Clune
usually #2 Singles 67%, also #3 Singles 33% · published 3
3.08
Stacy Andrews
published
2.96
Tricia Shaw
published
2.95
Niki Koesel
usually #2 Singles 67%, also #1 Singles 33% · published 3
2.92
Sara Beth Tindall
published
2.83
Kimberlee Curley
usually #3 Singles 100% · published 3
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.

Tricia Shaw + Katie Eggers5160% games+19.9% vs expected
Niki Koesel + Katie Eggers7357% games+10.9% vs expected
Niki Koesel + Tricia Shaw5157% gamesnot enough data
Stacy Andrews + Tricia Shaw213 matchesnot enough data
Niki Koesel + Suzanne Austin213 matchesnot enough data
Suzanne Austin + Caroline Cox123 matchesnot enough data
Katie Eggers + Caroline Cox033 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.

Suzanne Austin
31W–42L career · no lines in 2024
2%94%4%
3.28
3.5
Caroline Cox
13W–27L career · no lines in 2024
6%93%1%
3.21
Katie Eggers
26W–20L career · no lines in 2024
<1%18%82%
3.12
3
Molly Clune
77W–38L career · 3 lines in 2024
<1%26%74%
3.08
Stacy Andrews
31W–12L career · no lines in 2024
<1%27%73%
3.08
Tricia Shaw
30W–31L career · no lines in 2024
<1%61%39%
2.96
3
Niki Koesel
112W–67L career · 3 lines in 2024
<1%66%34%
2.95
Sara Beth Tindall
11W–10L career · no lines in 2024
<1%73%27%
2.92
3
Kimberlee Curley
46W–67L career · 2 lines in 2024
1%90%9%
2.83

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.