Teams

HOCO-JONES

2025 · 2026 MATA USTA MXD 18 & Over - Winter Thursday Nights

22 players · average NTRP 3.08 / GEORGIA

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2026-01-29vs MATA/Rodney WilsonWon 10
W#2 DoublesNick Buccelli / Kiara Laurent vs Brad Smith / Terrie Hastings6-2, 6-4
2026-01-22Lost 01
L#3 DoublesNick Buccelli / LaVella Head vs Jeff Dehem / Jan Slocumb0-6, 2-6
2026-01-22vs MATA/Rodney WilsonWon 10
W#1 DoublesNick Buccelli / Stephanie Carlson vs Michael Forsyth / Mercy Forsyth6-2, 2-6, 1-0
2026-01-08Lost 01
L#1 DoublesStephanie Carlson / Nick Buccelli vs Rodney Wilson / Stacy Byrd2-6, 2-6
2025-12-11Lost 01
L#1 DoublesStephanie Carlson / Nick Buccelli vs Rodney Wilson / Jan Slocumb2-6, 6-4, 0-1
2025-11-20vs MATA/Rodney WilsonWon 10
W#1 DoublesNick Buccelli / Stephanie Carlson vs John Carter / Terrie Hastings6-7, 6-1, 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 2026 MATA USTA MXD 18 & Over - Winter Thursday Nights 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 3.00 estimated across 20 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.

3.39
Kiara Laurent
usually #1 Doubles 41%, also #2 Doubles 28% · published
3.37
Wendy Way
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 28% · published
3.29
Philip West
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.26
Shannon Hankins
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 24% · published
3.16
Stephanie Carlson
usually #1 Doubles 37%, also #1 Singles 26% · published
3.13
Greg Landa
usually #1 Doubles 40%, also #2 Doubles 30% · published 3
3.11
Emma Warren
usually #2 Doubles 35%, also #1 Doubles 35% · published 3.5
3.06
Francine Sauer
usually #1 Doubles 64%, also #1 Singles 27% · published 3
3.02
Tyler Burns
usually #1 Doubles 36%, also #2 Doubles 36% · published
3.02
Tyler Burns
usually #1 Doubles 36%, also #2 Doubles 36% · published
3.02
LaVella Head
usually #1 Doubles 46%, also #3 Doubles 23% · published
2.97
Harnish Trivedi
usually #1 Doubles 39%, also #2 Singles 28% · published 3
2.97
Harnish Trivedi
usually #1 Doubles 39%, also #2 Singles 28% · published 3
2.94
Terry Jones
usually #2 Doubles 47%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
2.94
Terry Jones
usually #2 Doubles 47%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
2.88
Rolonda Gaskins
usually #3 Doubles 45%, also #2 Doubles 24% · published
2.75
Juan Gomez Gonzalez
usually #1 Doubles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
2.67
Clara Quintero
usually #2 Doubles 69%, also #3 Doubles 31% · published 3
2.58
Tracie Revis
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published
2.56
Rocio Quintero
usually #2 Doubles 58%, also #3 Doubles 32% · published
Joseph Cecchini
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
Nick Buccelli
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 17% · 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.

Greg Landa + Shannon Hankins5354% games+8.1% vs expected
Shannon Hankins + Francine Sauer10359% games+6.7% vs expected
Rocio Quintero + Clara Quintero9849% games+3.1% vs expected
Harnish Trivedi + Shannon Hankins4162% games−0.0% vs expected
Stephanie Carlson + Nick Buccelli5352% gamesnot enough data
Greg Landa + Terry Jones4255% gamesnot enough data
Terry Jones + Tyler Burns3251% gamesnot enough data
Emma Warren + Kiara Laurent314 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.

Kiara Laurent
73W–28L career · 31 lines in 2026
<1%79%21%
3.39
Wendy Way
29W–12L career · 18 lines in 2026
<1%<1%>99%
3.37
Philip West
17W–10L career · 3 lines in 2026
1%94%5%
3.29
Shannon Hankins
42W–14L career · 21 lines in 2026
2%94%3%
3.26
Stephanie Carlson
35W–21L career · 18 lines in 2026
11%89%<1%
3.16
3
Greg Landa
24W–13L career · 10 lines in 2026
<1%16%84%
3.13
3.5
Emma Warren
38W–19L career · 17 lines in 2026
20%80%<1%
3.11
3
Francine Sauer
28W–16L career · 11 lines in 2026
<1%33%67%
3.06
Tyler Burns
31W–12L career · 11 lines in 2026
<1%42%58%
3.02
Tyler Burns
31W–12L career · 11 lines in 2026
<1%42%58%
3.02
LaVella Head
36W–38L career · 20 lines in 2026
<1%44%56%
3.02
3
Harnish Trivedi
30W–18L career · 17 lines in 2026
<1%60%40%
2.97
3
Harnish Trivedi
30W–18L career · 17 lines in 2026
<1%60%40%
2.97
Terry Jones
21W–24L career · 15 lines in 2026
<1%68%32%
2.94
Terry Jones
21W–24L career · 15 lines in 2026
<1%68%32%
2.94
Rolonda Gaskins
61W–59L career · 27 lines in 2026
<1%83%17%
2.88
Juan Gomez Gonzalez
6W–7L career · 6 lines in 2026
3%95%3%
2.75
3
Clara Quintero
11W–18L career · 16 lines in 2026
9%90%1%
2.67
Tracie Revis
8W–22L career · 10 lines in 2026
28%72%<1%
2.58
Rocio Quintero
12W–20L career · 19 lines in 2026
32%68%<1%
2.56
Joseph Cecchini
11W–4L career · 6 lines in 2026
not enough data
Nick Buccelli
8W–7L career · 6 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.