Teams

Biggs - Serve & Slay 3.0 Singles

2025 Howard Singles · Howard Singles 3.0 Women

11 players · average NTRP 3.00 / MARYLAND

View scouting list →
Schedule7 played
2025-10-18vs Phan - All the Singles Ladies 3.0Lost 01
L#2 SinglesCandace Tomczak vs Heather Nesti1-6, 3-6
W#3 SinglesTrina Culbreath vs Erin Nguyen7-6, 4-6, 1-0
L#1 SinglesGauri Turner vs Betty Guzman Dowdy4-6, 2-6
2025-09-30vs Phan - All the Singles Ladies 3.0Lost 03
L#1 SinglesCandace Tomczak vs Paola Osaki2-6, 0-6
L#2 SinglesFrancesca Dougherty vs Julie Cabaniss2-6, 3-6
L#3 SinglesTrina Culbreath vs Caitlin Boyle2-6, 4-6
2025-09-27vs Smith - Sets In The City 3.0 SinglesSplit 11
L#1 SinglesLena Brandenburg vs Betty Guzman Dowdy6-2, 4-6, 0-1
W#3 SinglesFrancesca Dougherty vs Erin Nguyen6-4, 2-6, 1-0
2025-09-10vs Phan - All the Singles Ladies 3.0Lost 01
L#2 SinglesTannan Hagyard vs Keyonna Baker0-6, 0-6
2025-09-04Lost 01
L#1 SinglesTrina Culbreath vs Alison Smith3-6, 5-7
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 Howard 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 2.82 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.

3.74
Amy Luo
published 3.5
3.16
Lena Brandenburg
usually #3 Singles 83%, also #1 Singles 17% · published 3
2.90
Jennifer Yapsuga
published
2.87
Grace Tran
published 3
2.83
Gauri Turner
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 3
2.81
Candace Tomczak
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 50% · published 3
2.76
Francesca Dougherty
usually #3 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 50% · published 3
2.75
Shannon Biggs
published
2.73
Trina Culbreath
usually #3 Singles 67%, also #1 Singles 33% · published 3
2.34
Tannan Hagyard
usually #2 Singles 100% · published 2.5
2.18
Stephanie Baker
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.

Candace Tomczak + Gauri Turner2544% gamesnot enough data
Shannon Biggs + Tannan Hagyard213 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.

3.5
Amy Luo
29W–14L career · no lines in 2025
<1%3%97%
3.74
3
Lena Brandenburg
93W–74L career · 6 lines in 2025
<1%10%90%
3.16
Jennifer Yapsuga
6W–4L career · no lines in 2025
<1%78%22%
2.90
3
Grace Tran
15W–15L career · no lines in 2025
<1%83%16%
2.87
3
Gauri Turner
24W–73L career · 1 line in 2025
1%89%10%
2.83
3
Candace Tomczak
62W–118L career · 2 lines in 2025
1%92%7%
2.81
3
Francesca Dougherty
58W–74L career · 2 lines in 2025
2%94%3%
2.76
Shannon Biggs
18W–30L career · no lines in 2025
3%95%3%
2.75
3
Trina Culbreath
16W–26L career · 3 lines in 2025
4%94%2%
2.73
2.5
Tannan Hagyard
36W–85L career · 1 line in 2025
0%90%10%
2.34
Stephanie Baker
3W–9L career · no lines in 2025
0%99%1%
2.18

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.