Teams

Bowles: The Smash Coalition

2026 ONE Doubles SPRING · 4.0 Women

4 players · average NTRP 4.00 / NORTHERN

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 →
Schedule5 played
2026-04-28vs Renault: 1DubsRoch26 SpringWon 10
W#1 DoublesLily Fredericks / Claire Townsend vs Ruth Church / Kathy Brandt6-1, 3-6, 1-0
2026-04-21vs Sexton-Bad BunniesWon 10
W#1 DoublesIsabel Thiner / Julie Bowles vs Zeny McCoy / Natalie Prittinen6-3, 6-2
W#1 DoublesJulie Bowles / Lily Fredericks vs Jennifer Johnson / Virginia Kuberski6-3, 6-4
2026-04-07vs Summers-GraberWon 10
W#1 DoublesClaire Townsend / Isabel Thiner vs Angela Summers / Shani Graber6-2, 6-0
2026-03-31vs Anderson: Team ABCEWon 10
W#1 DoublesLily Fredericks / Isabel Thiner vs Tiffany Anderson / Stephanie Crowl6-1, 6-4
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 standings20 teams · 4.0 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Bowles: The Smash Coalition5050126
2Lockhart: Hit Happens4040022
3Johnson: wondubs3.04040227
4Kuberski: GoJoKuSe_ONEDbls_Spring264141334
5PaperMates3131231
6Allex ONE Dubs3131240
7McDonald: Terminetters3131333
8Fleming: Top Talent Tennis2222431
9Finley: Wellies2222438
10Good "win" Gals2222426
11Team Day2222539
12Renault: 1DubsRoch26 Spring2323645
13Anderson: Team ABCE2323745
14Sexton-Bad Bunnies2323751
15Spano: Team Cynophilists1313643
16Robillos 1DSpring20261313648
17Pilgrim/Knutson1313749
18Carousers0404847
19Blacik/Nasrabadi0404849
20Summers-Graber05051059

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 3.87 estimated across 4 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.

3.93
Isabel Thiner
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.89
Julie Bowles
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.88
Lily Fredericks
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.79
Claire Townsend
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
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.

Isabel Thiner + Julie Bowles4451% games+6.2% vs expected
Julie Bowles + Claire Townsend6554% games−0.9% vs expected
Isabel Thiner + Lily Fredericks2347% games−3.9% vs expected
Isabel Thiner + Claire Townsend123 matchesnot enough data
Lily Fredericks + Julie Bowles213 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.

Isabel Thiner
62W–43L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%70%30%
3.93
Julie Bowles
55W–43L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%78%21%
3.89
Lily Fredericks
12W–13L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%80%19%
3.88
4
Claire Townsend
31W–27L career · 2 lines in 2026
2%91%7%
3.79

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.