Teams

Ma.Cambo18T

2025 Capital Tri-Level 18 & Over · 2.5-3.0-3.5 Women

12 players · average NTRP 3.20 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2025-07-30vs Je.SagalSolomon18TWon 20
W#1 DoublesSarah Cecco / Elaine Hudson vs Kelly Johnson / Sharon Horton6-3, 6-1
W#2 DoublesSarah Forman / Kelsey Brandt vs Christy van Ness / Crystal Beard6-1, 6-3
2025-07-27Lost 01
L#2 DoublesKelsey Brandt / Sarah Forman vs Laurel Saunders / Megan Slocum6-3, 1-6, 0-1
2025-06-29Won 10
W#2 DoublesKathryn Horneffer / Kelsey Brandt vs Cheri Kivisto / Anne Redmond6-3, 6-3
2025-05-29Won 10
W#1 DoublesElaine Hudson / Sarah Cecco vs Tara Spina / Nancy Gugliotta6-0, 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 standings for 2.5-3.0-3.5 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 3.12 estimated across 12 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.

3.78
Molly Andrews
published
3.60
Elaine Hudson
published
3.42
Sarah Cecco
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.35
Kathryn Horneffer
usually #3 Doubles 57%, also #2 Doubles 43% · published 3.5
3.31
Katherine King
published
3.23
Madeline Cambo
published
3.08
Kelsey Brandt
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
3.01
Abigail Hunter
published 3.5
2.80
Sarah Forman
published
2.72
Kalli Unthank
published
2.70
Shanie Kpanay
published
2.45
Callan Fike
published 2.5
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.

Sarah Cecco + Elaine Hudson6263% games+6.9% vs expected
Elaine Hudson + Molly Andrews6257% games−4.8% vs expected
Sarah Forman + Kelsey Brandt404 matchesnot enough data
Callan Fike + Kalli Unthank213 matchesnot enough data
Kathryn Horneffer + Madeline Cambo303 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.

Molly Andrews
27W–23L career · no lines in 2025
2%92%6%
3.78
Elaine Hudson
33W–13L career · no lines in 2025
<1%25%75%
3.60
3.5
Sarah Cecco
32W–16L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%71%29%
3.42
3.5
Kathryn Horneffer
72W–31L career · 7 lines in 2025
1%84%15%
3.35
Katherine King
15W–9L career · no lines in 2025
1%90%9%
3.31
Madeline Cambo
28W–2L career · no lines in 2025
<1%5%95%
3.23
3
Kelsey Brandt
43W–17L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%29%71%
3.08
3.5
Abigail Hunter
2W–13L career · no lines in 2025
47%53%<1%
3.01
Sarah Forman
17W–14L career · no lines in 2025
2%91%7%
2.80
Kalli Unthank
5W–3L career · no lines in 2025
0%6%94%
2.72
Shanie Kpanay
0W–5L career · no lines in 2025
98%2%<1%
2.70
2.5
Callan Fike
7W–6L career · no lines in 2025
0%64%36%
2.45

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.