Teams

DPagano/APatrocino (Queens)

2026 Tri-Level 18 & Over League · 18 & Over 4.0

14 players · average NTRP 4.46 / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2026-07-15vs DWest/CWincek (Queens)Lost 12
W#1 DoublesSamantha Danesis / Meghan Bartholomew vs Natalie Ivanov / Callie Schmit6-1, 6-4
L#2 DoublesBecca Donaldson / Christina Peterson vs MAGDALENA STUDENOVSKY / Diana West2-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesColleen Beierwaltes / Megan Griffin vs Dora Burdzinska-Drezek / Cynthia Brinneman5-7, 7-5, 0-1
2026-07-08vs DThayaprasat (Queens)Won 21
W#1 DoublesSamantha Danesis / Meghan Bartholomew vs Jackie Gaine / Brittany Simpson5-7, 6-2, 1-0
W#2 DoublesLina Clarke / Amanda Patrocino vs Chloe Castain / Anna Kamenova6-4, 6-4
L#3 DoublesCorine Danesis / Michele Sutherland vs Caroline Pickup / Lisa Kane7-6, 2-6, 0-1
2026-06-24vs DThayaprasat (Queens)Lost 02
L#1 DoublesSamantha Danesis / Brittany Hill vs Hannah English Rahill / Eliza McPherron5-7, 6-1, 0-1
L#3 DoublesDaniela Pagano / Corine Danesis vs Lisa Kane / Caroline Pickup3-6, 1-6
2026-06-24vs DWest/CWincek (Queens)Lost 02
L#1 DoublesLina Clarke / Samantha Danesis vs Natalie Ivanov / Callie Schmit1-6, 4-6
L#2 DoublesJessica Varn / Becky Tennyson vs Hannah Chillag / Christine Kahm0-6, 1-6
2026-06-07vs DThayaprasat (Queens)Lost 03
L#1 DoublesMeghan Bartholomew / Brittany Hill vs Hannah English Rahill / Kindell Schmitt3-6, 6-4, 0-1
L#2 DoublesLina Clarke / Jessica Varn vs Darri Thayaprasat / Caroline Frank4-6, 5-7
L#3 DoublesMegan Griffin / Michele Sutherland vs Sarah Niess / Caroline Pickup2-6, 3-6
2026-06-03vs DWest/CWincek (Queens)Lost 12
L#1 DoublesSamantha Danesis / Lina Clarke vs Natalie Ivanov / Callie Schmit2-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesBecca Donaldson / Becky Tennyson vs Caroline Boger / Diana West2-6, 5-7
W#3 DoublesCorine Danesis / Colleen Beierwaltes vs Jennifer Alexander / Nily Willis6-4, 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 standings2 teams · 18 & Over 4.0
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1DWest/CWincek (Queens)5113512144
2DPagano/APatrocino (Queens)1541429200

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 4.08 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.

Brittany Hill
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 5
4.61
Samantha Danesis
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 5
4.60
Meghan Bartholomew
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 5
4.34
Lina Clarke
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 4.5
4.26
Jessica Varn
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
Becca Donaldson
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
4.15
Amanda Patrocino
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 4.5
4.03
Becky Tennyson
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 4.5
3.98
Colleen Beierwaltes
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.94
Christina Peterson
usually #1 Doubles 71%, also #2 Doubles 29% · published 4.5
3.90
Megan Griffin
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published
3.82
Michele Sutherland
usually #2 Doubles 57%, also #3 Doubles 43% · published 4
3.78
Corine Danesis
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.52
Daniela Pagano
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.

Amanda Patrocino + Becca Donaldson15070% games+11.0% vs expected
Michele Sutherland + Corine Danesis4258% games+8.1% vs expected
Amanda Patrocino + Meghan Bartholomew7459% games+7.3% vs expected
Christina Peterson + Colleen Beierwaltes5649% games+5.4% vs expected
Daniela Pagano + Michele Sutherland8260% games+3.8% vs expected
Meghan Bartholomew + Samantha Danesis14658% games+3.7% vs expected
Jessica Varn + Lina Clarke3355% games−1.1% vs expected
Brittany Hill + Samantha Danesis2550% games−3.2% 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.

5
Brittany Hill
3W–7L career · 2 lines in 2026
not enough data
5
Samantha Danesis
111W–53L career · 5 lines in 2026
21%79%<1%
4.61
5
Meghan Bartholomew
66W–46L career · 3 lines in 2026
21%78%<1%
4.60
4.5
Lina Clarke
67W–47L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%89%11%
4.34
4.5
Jessica Varn
51W–32L career · 2 lines in 2026
2%94%3%
4.26
4.5
Becca Donaldson
75W–12L career · 2 lines in 2026
not enough data
4.5
Amanda Patrocino
176W–39L career · 4 lines in 2026
12%88%<1%
4.15
4.5
Becky Tennyson
120W–81L career · 6 lines in 2026
41%59%<1%
4.03
4
Colleen Beierwaltes
143W–37L career · 6 lines in 2026
<1%55%45%
3.98
4.5
Christina Peterson
100W–61L career · 7 lines in 2026
67%33%<1%
3.94
Megan Griffin
24W–26L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%78%21%
3.90
4
Michele Sutherland
338W–177L career · 7 lines in 2026
1%91%8%
3.82
4
Corine Danesis
34W–29L career · 3 lines in 2026
2%94%4%
3.78
4
Daniela Pagano
153W–109L career · 1 line in 2026
45%55%<1%
3.52

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.