Teams

Niles-Holt/Knoxville

2026 Adult 18 & Over-Knoxville · 2.5 Women

8 players · average NTRP 2.50 / TENNESSEE

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2026-05-12vs Burks-Buchanan/KnoxvilleLost 01
L#1 DoublesLeigh Gatto / Cindy Holt vs Sarah Buchanan / Rachel Burks1-6, 2-6
2026-04-21Split 11
L#1 DoublesLeigh Gatto / Melissa Kirby vs Anna Jenkins / Cate New4-6, 4-6
W#2 DoublesClaire Dickenson / Eliza Dickenson vs Lauren Bosse / Celeste Fillauer6-2, 6-1
2026-04-07vs Blackburn/KnoxvilleLost 03
L#1 DoublesSherry van Beke / Leigh Gatto vs Megan Parker / Brittany Dilworth0-6, 1-6
L#1 SinglesKim Lushbaugh vs Sarah Connor4-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesJulie Niles / Cindy Holt vs Gloria Palacios / Kimberly Ford0-6, 1-6
2026-03-31vs WegnerReid/KnoxvilleLost 02
L#1 DoublesJulie Niles / Sherry van Beke vs Sarah Reid / Kelsey Stone1-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesEliza Dickenson / Nicole Lipsey vs Catherine White / Molly Teague1-6, 5-7
2026-03-24vs Burks-Buchanan/KnoxvilleLost 12
L#1 DoublesKim Lushbaugh / Sherry van Beke vs Kimberly LeRoy / Amy McCleary0-6, 0-6
W#1 SinglesLeigh Gatto vs Mindy Blakeslee4-6, 7-5, 1-0
L#2 DoublesClaire Dickenson / Eliza Dickenson vs Rachel Burks / Meredith Godbold1-6, 1-6
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 2.5 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 1.91 estimated across 5 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.

Claire Dickenson
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
1.99
Julie Niles
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
1.98
Sherry van Beke
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
1.97
Cindy Holt
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 2.5
1.80
Kim Lushbaugh
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 50% · published
1.79
Leigh Gatto
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #1 Doubles 30% · published
Michele Bowlin
published
Nicole Lipsey
usually #2 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.

Cindy Holt + Leigh Gatto0623% games−10.2% vs expected
Cindy Holt + Julie Niles0617% games−23.6% vs expected
Cindy Holt + Sherry van Beke213 matchesnot enough data
Sherry van Beke + Julie Niles033 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
Claire Dickenson
1W–2L career · type S · 2 lines in 2026
not enough data
Julie Niles
0W–10L career · 2 lines in 2026
0%>99%<1%
1.99
Sherry van Beke
4W–18L career · 3 lines in 2026
0%>99%<1%
1.98
2.5
Cindy Holt
8W–31L career · 2 lines in 2026
0%>99%<1%
1.97
Kim Lushbaugh
1W–9L career · 2 lines in 2026
0%>99%<1%
1.80
Leigh Gatto
3W–42L career · 10 lines in 2026
0%>99%<1%
1.79
Michele Bowlin
1W–2L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Nicole Lipsey
0W–2L career · 1 line 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.