Teams

Walker/18s/6.5/PAC

2025 Man · Cov Southern Combo 18 & Over - Women Night

14 players · average NTRP 3.39 / LOUISIANA

View scouting list →
Schedule
Flight standings5 teams · Cov Southern Combo 18 & Over - Women Night
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Walker/18s/6.5/PAC7118614176
2Caswell/18s/6.5/NC6215925204
3Englert/18s/6.5/SC44131122189
4Tickner/18s/6.5/FAC35111329219
5Guillet/18s/6.5/COQ0832145283

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 3.19 estimated across 10 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.

3.64
Abby Hunt
usually #1 Doubles 79%, also #2 Doubles 13% · published 3.5
3.64
Catherine Martinez
usually #1 Singles 49%, also #2 Doubles 27% · published 4
3.27
Amber Mata
usually #2 Doubles 48%, also #1 Doubles 35% · published 3.5
3.26
Brooke Brown
usually #1 Doubles 40%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.22
Erin Lorio
usually #1 Doubles 56%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published 3.5
3.20
Dana Gegenheimer
usually #3 Doubles 44%, also #2 Doubles 22% · published 3.5
3.17
Ann Boushie
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 24% · published 3
2.96
Molly Burns
usually #3 Doubles 36%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
2.83
Amy St. Romain
usually #3 Doubles 64%, also #1 Doubles 18% · published 3
2.67
Ashley Neumann
usually #3 Doubles 54%, also #2 Doubles 39% · published 3
Jeanne Woodrick
usually #3 Doubles 39%, also #1 Doubles 35% · published
Joelle Cuevas
usually #3 Doubles 46%, also #1 Doubles 28% · published
Rebecca Sandoz
usually #1 Doubles 34%, also #3 Doubles 31% · published
Stephanie Songy
usually #2 Doubles 46%, also #3 Doubles 27% · 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.

Stephanie Songy + Ann Boushie1546% gamesnot enough data
Erin Lorio + Abby Hunt6068% gamesnot enough data
Rebecca Sandoz + Joelle Cuevas2346% gamesnot enough data
Rebecca Sandoz + Jeanne Woodrick3254% gamesnot enough data
Stephanie Songy + Abby Hunt5062% gamesnot enough data
Erin Lorio + Brooke Brown404 matchesnot enough data
Rebecca Sandoz + Amy St. Romain213 matchesnot enough data
Erin Lorio + Amber Mata123 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
Abby Hunt
45W–9L career · 24 lines in 2025
<1%14%86%
3.64
4
Catherine Martinez
30W–14L career · 33 lines in 2025
14%86%<1%
3.64
3.5
Amber Mata
22W–29L career · 23 lines in 2025
2%94%4%
3.27
3.5
Brooke Brown
28W–6L career · 14 lines in 2025
2%94%3%
3.26
3.5
Erin Lorio
28W–19L career · 25 lines in 2025
5%94%1%
3.22
3.5
Dana Gegenheimer
7W–20L career · type A · 17 lines in 2025
6%93%1%
3.20
3
Ann Boushie
52W–22L career · 38 lines in 2025
<1%9%91%
3.17
Molly Burns
40W–22L career · 35 lines in 2025
<1%63%37%
2.96
3
Amy St. Romain
16W–13L career · 11 lines in 2025
1%90%10%
2.83
3
Ashley Neumann
18W–49L career · 13 lines in 2025
9%90%1%
2.67
Jeanne Woodrick
12W–24L career · 22 lines in 2025
not enough data
Joelle Cuevas
34W–34L career · 39 lines in 2025
not enough data
Rebecca Sandoz
37W–21L career · 35 lines in 2025
not enough data
Stephanie Songy
20W–25L career · 26 lines in 2025
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.