Teams

Biggs - All the Singles Ladies

2026 Baltimore Singles · Baltimore Singles 3.0 Women

8 players · average NTRP 2.90 / MARYLAND

View scouting list →
Schedule7 played
L#1 SinglesCandace Tomczak vs Nicole Cameron2-6, 2-6
W#2 SinglesShannon Biggs vs Etta Elliott6-3, 6-1
L#3 SinglesRebekah Noven vs Kate Matterer3-6, 2-6
L#1 SinglesJennifer Yapsuga vs Carol Vidal4-6, 6-1, 0-1
L#2 SinglesCandace Tomczak vs Nicole Cameron4-6, 4-6
L#3 SinglesTannan Hagyard vs Kate Matterer2-6, 1-6
W#1 SinglesJennifer Yapsuga vs Carol Vidal6-4, 6-3
L#2 SinglesRebekah Noven vs Iris Lau2-6, 6-3, 0-1
W#3 SinglesShannon Biggs vs Jamilla Galloway6-2, 6-3
2026-08-22vs Elliott - All The Single Ladies 3.0Split 11
L#1 SinglesKeyonna Baker vs Kate Matterer3-6, 3-6
W#2 SinglesCandace Tomczak vs Shaunte Taswell3-6, 6-3, 1-0
2026-08-19vs Elliott - All The Single Ladies 3.0Split 11
W#1 SinglesKeyonna Baker vs Hannah Shea6-2, 2-6, 1-0
L#3 SinglesTannan Hagyard vs Iris Lau4-6, 6-2, 0-1
W#1 SinglesKeyonna Baker vs Iris Lau6-3, 6-3
W#2 SinglesRebekah Noven vs Etta Elliott6-2, 6-1
W#3 SinglesTannan Hagyard vs Bree Caudill6-2, 6-1
2026-07-30vs Elliott - All The Single Ladies 3.0Split 11
W#2 SinglesShannon Biggs vs Hannah Shea1-6, 6-4, 1-0
L#3 SinglesRebekah Noven vs Jamilla Galloway4-6, 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 standings2 teams · Baltimore Singles 3.0 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Biggs - All the Singles Ladies2163763
2Elliott - All The Single Ladies 3.012361393

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 2.77 estimated across 8 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.

3.04
Keyonna Baker
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 3
2.90
Nicole Whitecar
published
2.90
Jennifer Yapsuga
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
2.81
Candace Tomczak
usually #2 Singles 67%, also #1 Singles 33% · published 3
2.77
Shannon Biggs
usually #2 Singles 67%, also #3 Singles 33% · published
2.73
Trina Culbreath
published 3
2.67
Rebekah Noven
usually #3 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 50% · published 3
2.32
Tannan Hagyard
usually #3 Singles 100% · 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.

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
Keyonna Baker
165W–125L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%39%61%
3.04
Nicole Whitecar
3W–1L career · no lines in 2026
<1%75%25%
2.90
Jennifer Yapsuga
6W–4L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%76%24%
2.90
3
Candace Tomczak
62W–118L career · 3 lines in 2026
1%90%9%
2.81
Shannon Biggs
18W–28L career · 3 lines in 2026
2%92%5%
2.77
3
Trina Culbreath
16W–26L career · no lines in 2026
5%92%3%
2.73
3
Rebekah Noven
51W–81L career · 4 lines in 2026
12%87%1%
2.67
2.5
Tannan Hagyard
35W–85L career · 3 lines in 2026
0%90%10%
2.32

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.