Teams

Koumaris

2026 OKCTri-Level 18 & Over · Women 4.0

12 players · average NTRP 4.33 / OKLAHOMA

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2026-03-01vs Shouse triLost 12
L#1 DoublesEmily Pomeroy / Caitlyn Sagraves vs Leah Jacob / Grace Lorenz1-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesAngie Koumaris / Emily Hall vs Rose Cabato / Laurie Damron2-6, 2-6
W#3 DoublesAbby Jordan / Grace Hall vs Emily Kitch / Rachell Mariano3-6, 6-3, 1-0
2026-02-24vs Shouse triLost 03
L#1 DoublesAngie Koumaris / Caitlyn Sagraves vs Leah Jacob / Jamie Shouse0-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesEmily Pomeroy / Susie Luebbe vs Carissa Villaflor / Amy Mueller3-6, 2-6
L#3 DoublesMary Palmer / Abby Jordan vs Amanda Digney / Emily Kitch6-4, 3-6, 1-0
2026-02-22vs Shouse triLost 12
L#1 DoublesLibby Hillis / Caitlyn Sagraves vs Emily K Pomeroy / Vanessa Cunningham6-3, 6-7, 0-1
L#2 DoublesEmily Pomeroy / Emily Hall vs Carissa Villaflor / Amy Mueller2-6, 2-6
W#3 DoublesMary Palmer / Grace Hall vs Rachell Mariano / Dona Zanotti6-3, 3-6, 1-0
2026-02-15vs Shouse triLost 03
L#1 DoublesAnn Pepper / Libby Hillis vs Jamie Shouse / Emily K Pomeroy3-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesSusie Luebbe / Emily Hall vs Amy Mueller / Carissa Villaflor0-6, 2-6
L#3 DoublesMary Palmer / Grace Hall vs Amanda Digney / Emily Kitch1-6, 2-6
2026-02-01vs Shouse triLost 12
W#1 DoublesLibby Hillis / Ann Pepper vs Leah Jacob / Vanessa Cunningham6-1, 4-6, 1-0
L#2 DoublesAngie Koumaris / Susie Luebbe vs Carissa Villaflor / Amy Mueller3-6, 2-6
L#3 DoublesMary Palmer / Abby Jordan vs Dona Zanotti / Amanda Digney2-6, 5-7
2026-01-18vs Shouse triLost 12
L#1 DoublesLibby Hillis / Ann Pepper vs Emily K Pomeroy / Vanessa Cunningham0-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesAngie Koumaris / Susie Luebbe vs Laurie Damron / Rose Cabato3-6, 3-6
W#3 DoublesKacie Pye / Abby Jordan vs Dona Zanotti / Rachell Mariano7-5, 6-1
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 · Women 4.0
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Shouse tri6014410110
2Koumaris0641431197

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 3.64 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.

3.92
Libby Hillis
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.87
Susie Luebbe
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.84
Caitlyn Sagraves
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
3.83
Emily Pomeroy
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
3.83
Angie Koumaris
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 4.5
3.67
Emily Hall
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.60
Michele Hill
published
3.58
Ann Pepper
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.55
Abby Jordan
usually #1 Doubles 69%, also #3 Doubles 31% · published 4
3.42
Kacie Pye
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
2.96
Grace Hall
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Mary Palmer
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.

Michele Hill + Emily Pomeroy7464% games+7.6% vs expected
Caitlyn Sagraves + Emily Pomeroy1435% games−5.9% vs expected
Libby Hillis + Emily Hall3252% games−9.8% vs expected
Libby Hillis + Ann Pepper123 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.

Libby Hillis
16W–11L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%73%27%
3.92
Susie Luebbe
32W–23L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%82%18%
3.87
4.5
Caitlyn Sagraves
19W–28L career · 3 lines in 2026
87%13%<1%
3.84
Emily Pomeroy
42W–55L career · 3 lines in 2026
1%88%11%
3.83
4.5
Angie Koumaris
9W–15L career · 4 lines in 2026
89%11%<1%
3.83
Emily Hall
30W–21L career · 3 lines in 2026
12%88%1%
3.67
Michele Hill
74W–49L career · no lines in 2026
23%77%<1%
3.60
Ann Pepper
8W–5L career · 3 lines in 2026
29%71%<1%
3.58
4
Abby Jordan
23W–12L career · 13 lines in 2026
37%63%<1%
3.55
Kacie Pye
35W–14L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%<1%>99%
3.42
Grace Hall
11W–9L career · 3 lines in 2026
>99%<1%<1%
2.96
Mary Palmer
1W–0L career · no lines in 2026
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.