Teams

USTA Atlanta/Tricinda Waites

USTA Atlanta Summer - 40 & Over Business Women (Tuesday PM) · 4.0 (*New* 3 Lines of Doubles -NO SINGLES)

18 players · average NTRP 4.00 / GEORGIA

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
2024-07-16vs Northampton (Lisa Link)*Lost 02
L#1 DoublesKathy Watts / Gina Woods vs Maki Delaney / Nina Chopra1-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesSharolyn Evans / Pamela Keys vs Caroline Schwefler / Chason Worthy5-7, 6-7
W#1 DoublesTangela Sanders / Lucille Watkins vs Lisa Green / Laurel Currivan3-6, 6-4, 6-1
W#2 DoublesQuendolyn Holloway / Sharolyn Evans vs Jackie Cross / Cheryl Parsel6-2, 6-4
2024-06-18vs Chimney Springs (Tina Binette)*Won 30
W#1 DoublesJulie Etzel / Tara McGowan vs Alayne Palacios / Tina Binette6-4, 6-1
W#2 DoublesDiane Hamilton / Tricinda Waites vs Leanne Dennis / Lauren Zellers6-4, 6-1
W#3 DoublesJamila Fordham / Irenette Shumake vs Liz Robin / Jenny Lang1-6, 6-4, 6-2
2024-06-11vs MJCCA (Susan Kaplan)*Won 30
W#1 DoublesSanna Sosa / Sarah Hankamer vs Andrea Lipman / Laura Ventimiglia6-3, 6-4
W#2 DoublesDiane Hamilton / Tricinda Waites vs Jamie Bill / Caron Levy Holzer3-6, 7-5, 6-4
W#3 DoublesJamila Fordham / Irenette Shumake vs Talya Holzer / Lori Louis6-2, 6-0
2024-06-04vs Northampton (Lisa Link)*Won 30
W#1 DoublesTara McGowan / Julie Etzel vs Chason Worthy / Lisa Link7-5, 6-4
W#2 DoublesDiane Hamilton / Cotonya Peterson vs Jennifer Boone / Caroline Schwefler2-6, 6-4, 6-3
W#3 DoublesTricinda Waites / Sarah Hankamer vs Nina Chopra / Nicole Malto6-2, 7-5
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 4.0 (*New* 3 Lines of Doubles -NO SINGLES) 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 3.79 estimated across 17 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.

4.22
Tangela Sanders
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.99
Lucille Watkins
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.92
Julie Etzel
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.92
Tara McGowan
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.88
Cotonya Peterson
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.86
Sanna Sosa
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.86
Diane Hamilton
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.85
Sarah Hankamer
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
3.75
Quendolyn Holloway
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Irenette Shumake
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.75
Tricinda Waites
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
3.72
Kathy Watts
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.69
Sharolyn Evans
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.67
Michelle Landry
published
3.64
Pamela Keys
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.63
Cheryl Boston
published 4
3.61
Gina Woods
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.50
Jamila Fordham
usually #3 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.

Cotonya Peterson + Pamela Keys6262% games+5.6% vs expected
Kathy Watts + Cotonya Peterson3259% games+4.6% vs expected
Lucille Watkins + Tangela Sanders7164% games+3.2% vs expected
Cotonya Peterson + Tricinda Waites10558% games+0.0% vs expected
Julie Etzel + Sarah Hankamer12459% games−0.9% vs expected
Kathy Watts + Sharolyn Evans7454% games−1.0% vs expected
Cotonya Peterson + Michelle Landry3255% games−2.8% vs expected
Diane Hamilton + Tricinda Waites11851% games−3.9% vs expected
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.

Tangela Sanders
48W–8L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%5%95%
4.22
Lucille Watkins
50W–11L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%53%47%
3.99
Julie Etzel
47W–40L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%73%27%
3.92
Tara McGowan
27W–16L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%74%26%
3.92
4
Cotonya Peterson
42W–22L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%83%17%
3.88
Sanna Sosa
29W–15L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%85%15%
3.86
4
Diane Hamilton
82W–34L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%86%14%
3.86
Sarah Hankamer
49W–17L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%88%12%
3.85
Quendolyn Holloway
9W–4L career · 1 line in 2025
3%95%3%
3.75
4
Irenette Shumake
5W–2L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Tricinda Waites
42W–25L career · 3 lines in 2025
3%95%3%
3.75
Kathy Watts
29W–23L career · 1 line in 2025
4%94%2%
3.72
Sharolyn Evans
15W–14L career · 2 lines in 2025
7%92%1%
3.69
Michelle Landry
13W–17L career · no lines in 2025
9%90%1%
3.67
Pamela Keys
57W–27L career · 1 line in 2025
13%86%<1%
3.64
4
Cheryl Boston
4W–15L career · no lines in 2025
16%83%<1%
3.63
4
Gina Woods
31W–32L career · 1 line in 2025
19%80%<1%
3.61
4
Jamila Fordham
37W–18L career · 2 lines in 2025
51%49%<1%
3.50

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.