OLYMPIC 18MX9.0A

2026 MIXED 18&Over · 18&Over MX9.0

31 players · average NTRP 4.50 / NO. CALIFORNIA

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 →

Schedule6 played

2026-03-10vs GOLDMAN TC 18MX9.0ALost 0–2

L#1 DoublesAlexander Brenner / Catherine Kelley vs Nora Engelmann / Cody Lin1-6, 1-6

L#3 DoublesMatthew Willey / Schuyler Tilney-Volk vs Clark Wininger / Amy Jiang5-7, 5-7

2026-03-03vs GOLDMAN TC 18MX9.0ALost 0–1

L#3 DoublesBrigitte Desnoes / Joe Gulash vs Lindsay Huang / Sharan Shodhan0-6, 2-6

2026-03-01vs GOLDMAN TC 18MX9.0ALost 0–1

L#1 DoublesNicholas Benson / Helen Zhang vs Lizzie Siegle / Kaisen Chen3-6, 2-6

2026-01-21vs GOLDMAN TC 18MX9.0ALost 0–2

L#2 DoublesAlexander Brenner / Catherine Kelley vs Emily Huang / Kaisen Chen3-6, 3-6

L#3 DoublesCarolina O'Haren / David Hultman vs Mae Hoad / Nicklas Chen Schmidt2-6, 2-6

2026-01-19vs GOLDMAN TC 18MX9.0ALost 0–1

L#2 DoublesMatthew Willey / Helen Zhang vs Kevin Yeh / Olivia Sun1-6, 3-6

2026-01-10vs MARIN TC 18MX9.0AWon 2–1

W#1 DoublesLance Ngo / Nicole Wedlake vs Jonathan Lefferts / Nicole Buckland6-3, 6-4

L#2 DoublesMatthew Ebert / Kayla Emmerson vs Matthew Littrell / Lisa Eastlack3-6, 3-6

W#3 DoublesJeffrey Curtiss / Victoria Watts vs Jason Holmes / Jennifer Holmes3-6, 6-1, 1-0

A tie can be incomplete. Tell us if someone is missing.

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 standings27 teams · 18&Over MX9.0

Team	W	L	Ind. W	Ind. L	Sets lost	Games lost
1GOLDMAN TC 18MX9.0A	10	0	27	3	11	185
2RINCONADA PK 18MX9.0A	9	1	23	7	16	217
3SAN PABLO PK 18MX9.0A	9	1	24	6	19	193
4SUNNYVALE MTC 18MX9.0B	9	1	22	8	21	214
5SUNNYVALE MTC 18MX9.0C	8	2	24	6	18	225
6PLEASANTON 18MX9.0A	8	2	20	10	27	266
7SEASCAPE SC 18MX9.0A	8	2	21	9	28	251
8JOHNSON RANCH 18MX9.0A	7	3	18	12	26	258
9ALMADEN SR 18MX9.0A	7	3	18	12	31	293
10ST MARY 18MX9.0A	7	3	19	11	31	265
11SHELDON PK 18MX9.0A	6	4	20	10	25	237
12BAY TREES PK 18MX9.0A	6	4	18	12	27	232
13RIO DEL ORO 18MX9.0A	6	4	13	17	40	315
14FREMONT TC 18MX9.0A	4	6	13	17	38	296
15LOS GATOS SR 18MX9.0A	4	6	13	17	41	304
16BAY CLUB SANTA CLARA 18MX9.0A	4	6	12	18	41	293
17SUNNYVALE TC/SUNNYVALE MTC 18MX9.0A	4	6	11	19	42	278
18MENLO ATHERTON HS 18MX9.0A	3	7	13	17	41	321
19CUESTA TC 18MX9.0A	3	7	9	21	43	307
20WALNUT CREEK RC/Walnut Creek TC 18MX9.0A	3	7	11	19	44	311
21OLYMPIC 18MX9.0A	2	5	6	15	31	202
22PLEASANTON 18MX9.0B	2	8	9	21	42	310
23BAY CLUB COURTSIDE 18MX9.0A	1	9	8	22	45	304
24GOLD RIVER RC 18MX9.0A	1	9	9	21	47	321
25SAN PABLO PK 18MX9.0B	1	9	6	24	50	330
26MARIN TC 18MX9.0A	0	7	3	18	37	228
27PINEWOOD PK 18MX9.0A	0	10	6	24	51	328

Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.

See the full flight, with every team’s record

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 4.05 estimated across 27 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.

4.91

Alexander Brenner

usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 5

4.83

Lance Ngo

usually #1 Doubles 100% · published —

4.75

Brigitte Desnoes

usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 5

4.37

David Hultman

usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 4.5

4.30

Julia Lokey

usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published —

4.21

Gwynne Rolla

usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published —

4.16

Allison Watts

published 4.5

4.15

Matthew Willey

usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published —

4.10

Victoria Watts

usually #3 Doubles 100% · published —

4.08

Carolina O'Haren

usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4.5

4.06

Maddie Thomas

usually #1 Doubles 52%, also #2 Doubles 29% · published —

4.04

Patrick Dwyer

usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published —

4.03

Valerie Pietrasz

usually #2 Doubles 40%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published —

4.01

Lisa Lohre

usually #2 Doubles 100% · published —

4.01

Jennifer Dibble

published —

3.99

Karla Lovett

published —

3.97

Katherine McCracken

usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published —

3.93

Jeffrey Curtiss

usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published —

3.89

Nicholas Benson

usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published —

3.85

Angie Wong

published 4.5

3.81

Tracy Scruggs

usually #2 Doubles 100% · published —

3.78

Joe Gulash

usually #3 Doubles 100% · published —

3.76

Schuyler Tilney-Volk

usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #3 Doubles 40% · published —

3.73

Helen Zhang

usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published —

3.54

Catherine Kelley

usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 4

3.53

Tricia Weaver-Moss

usually #3 Doubles 100% · published —

3.53

Carla Hultman

published 4

—

Kayla Emmerson

usually #2 Doubles 100% · published —

—

Matthew Ebert

usually #2 Doubles 100% · published —

—

Nicole Wedlake

usually #1 Doubles 100% · published —

—

Sam Stone

usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published —

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.

Alexander Brenner

1W–2L career · 2 lines in 2026

no projection at this level

4.91

—

Lance Ngo

3W–1L career · 1 line in 2026

no projection at this level

4.83

Brigitte Desnoes

4W–10L career · type S · 6 lines in 2026

no projection at this level

4.75

4.5

David Hultman

10W–7L career · type A · 4 lines in 2026

<1%82%18%

4.37

—

Julia Lokey

4W–6L career · 4 lines in 2026

2%91%8%

4.30

—

Gwynne Rolla

4W–11L career · 2 lines in 2026

7%91%2%

4.21

4.5

Allison Watts

2W–1L career · no lines in 2026

13%87%1%

4.16

—

Matthew Willey

4W–12L career · 2 lines in 2026

15%85%1%

4.15

—

Victoria Watts

2W–1L career · 1 line in 2026

24%76%<1%

4.10

4.5

Carolina O'Haren

1W–3L career · 1 line in 2026

29%71%<1%

4.08

—

Maddie Thomas

61W–18L career · 21 lines in 2026

<1%32%68%

4.06

—

Patrick Dwyer

6W–3L career · 4 lines in 2026

no projection at this level

4.04

—

Valerie Pietrasz

10W–7L career · 10 lines in 2026

41%59%<1%

4.03

—

Lisa Lohre

9W–10L career · 1 line in 2026

46%54%<1%

4.01

—

Jennifer Dibble

4W–3L career · no lines in 2026

47%53%<1%

4.01

—

Karla Lovett

0W–9L career · no lines in 2026

54%46%<1%

3.99

—

Katherine McCracken

3W–3L career · 3 lines in 2026

59%41%<1%

3.97

—

Jeffrey Curtiss

6W–11L career · 6 lines in 2026

70%30%<1%

3.93

—

Nicholas Benson

6W–10L career · 2 lines in 2026

79%21%<1%

3.89

4.5

Angie Wong

0W–3L career · type S · no lines in 2026

86%14%<1%

3.85

—

Tracy Scruggs

3W–3L career · 2 lines in 2026

1%90%8%

3.81

—

Joe Gulash

15W–8L career · 1 line in 2026

2%92%6%

3.78

—

Schuyler Tilney-Volk

3W–6L career · 5 lines in 2026

96%4%<1%

3.76

—

Helen Zhang

2W–7L career · 2 lines in 2026

97%3%<1%

3.73

Catherine Kelley

5W–7L career · 2 lines in 2026

39%61%<1%

3.54

—

Tricia Weaver-Moss

3W–7L career · 2 lines in 2026

41%59%<1%

3.53

Carla Hultman

1W–2L career · type S · no lines in 2026

42%58%<1%

3.53

—

Kayla Emmerson

0W–1L career · 1 line in 2026

not enough data

—

Matthew Ebert

2W–1L career · 1 line in 2026

not enough data

—

Nicole Wedlake

1W–1L career · 1 line in 2026

not enough data

—

Sam Stone

0W–2L career · 2 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.