Teams

Wagon Wheel/Urano W4.5F

2026 DALLAS TENNIS N · A 18 & Over ADULT Fall W. Friday

20 players · average NTRP 4.50 / TEXAS

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 →
Schedule4 played
L#1 DoublesKate VandeBerghe / Kenda Bevill vs Sonia Moorthy / Melanie Finnegan1-6, 4-6
W#3 DoublesKenda Bevill / Tiffany Miller vs Lauren Dewhirst / Laura Lusk6-3, 6-4
2025-10-03Won 10
W#2 DoublesKenda Bevill / Andrea Taylor vs Mary Allen / Jennifer Gibson6-3, 6-1
2025-09-12Lost 01
L#2 DoublesKenda Bevill / Kate VandeBerghe vs Anne Doise / Natalie Timothy6-2, 4-6, 0-1
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 standings7 teams · A 18 & Over ADULT Fall W. Friday
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Lifetime Plano/Behrman-Hanold W4.5F6019511145
2Wagon Wheel/Urano W4.5F5118617189
3Jack Coleman/Smith W4.5F42131124200
4DAC/Wheeler W4.5F33101429232
5The Lakes TA/Hunt-Wollitz W4.5F2491533232
6Oak Creek/Timothy W4.5F1581636249
7Samuell Grand/Jeffery-Musick W4.5F0671736251

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 4.09 estimated across 19 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.

4.42
Courtney McClurkin
usually #1 Singles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 5
4.39
Ashley Reaves
usually #1 Singles 83%, also #2 Doubles 17% · published 4.5
4.26
Michelle Behm
usually #1 Doubles 63%, also #3 Doubles 38% · published
4.26
Kate VandeBerghe
published
4.25
Livene Rose-Munoz
usually #2 Doubles 83%, also #1 Doubles 17% · published
4.25
Melissa Walters
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
4.18
Brooke Cabianca
usually #1 Doubles 86%, also #2 Doubles 14% · published 4.5
4.18
Ashli Urano
usually #3 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 4.5
4.15
Aubrey Findley
published 4.5
4.14
Kenda Bevill
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published
4.14
Christina Colwell
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 4.5
4.09
Vanessa Kelley
published
4.03
Jody Hassemer
published
3.98
Ashley Longoria
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 4.5
3.94
Jackie Reily
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
3.92
Laura Marroquin
usually #3 Doubles 83%, also #1 Singles 17% · published
3.88
Tara Morgan
usually #3 Doubles 43%, also #1 Doubles 29% · published
3.72
Andrea Taylor
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 4
3.60
Natalie Stewart
published
Emarely Rosa-Davila
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.

Kate VandeBerghe + Michelle Behm8061% games+9.9% vs expected
Brooke Cabianca + Kate VandeBerghe271055% games+3.9% vs expected
Melissa Walters + Livene Rose-Munoz7457% games−0.7% vs expected
Aubrey Findley + Vanessa Kelley5646% games−10.1% vs expected
Kate VandeBerghe + Kenda Bevill0743% games−14.4% vs expected
Jackie Reily + Aubrey Findley404 matchesnot enough data
Jackie Reily + Livene Rose-Munoz314 matchesnot enough data
Ashley Reaves + Ashli Urano314 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.

5
Courtney McClurkin
17W–15L career · 3 lines in 2026
no projection at this level
4.42
4.5
Ashley Reaves
40W–11L career · 6 lines in 2026
<1%78%22%
4.39
Michelle Behm
23W–11L career · 8 lines in 2026
3%92%5%
4.26
Kate VandeBerghe
77W–39L career · no lines in 2026
3%92%4%
4.26
Livene Rose-Munoz
33W–13L career · 6 lines in 2026
4%93%4%
4.25
Melissa Walters
30W–17L career · 1 line in 2026
4%93%4%
4.25
4.5
Brooke Cabianca
28W–16L career · 7 lines in 2026
9%89%1%
4.18
4.5
Ashli Urano
19W–14L career · 4 lines in 2026
10%89%1%
4.18
4.5
Aubrey Findley
47W–23L career · no lines in 2026
14%85%1%
4.15
Kenda Bevill
7W–8L career · 4 lines in 2026
16%83%<1%
4.14
4.5
Christina Colwell
55W–19L career · 1 line in 2026
16%83%<1%
4.14
Vanessa Kelley
26W–17L career · no lines in 2026
25%74%<1%
4.09
Jody Hassemer
26W–13L career · no lines in 2026
41%59%<1%
4.03
4.5
Ashley Longoria
30W–7L career · 4 lines in 2026
56%44%<1%
3.98
Jackie Reily
25W–28L career · 3 lines in 2026
65%35%<1%
3.94
Laura Marroquin
28W–13L career · 6 lines in 2026
<1%71%29%
3.92
Tara Morgan
21W–17L career · 7 lines in 2026
80%20%<1%
3.88
4
Andrea Taylor
51W–18L career · 4 lines in 2026
6%92%2%
3.72
Natalie Stewart
9W–11L career · no lines in 2026
>99%<1%<1%
3.60
Emarely Rosa-Davila
2W–1L career · no 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.