Teams

Copper Creek - Simpson

Cherokee Spring - USTA Mixed 18 & Over · 4.0

11 players · average NTRP 4.00 / GEORGIA

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
2026-04-24vs Woodmont - McAndrewWon 10
W#2 DoublesZach Bateman / Malory Bateman vs Stacee Sylvester / David Heeman6-2, 6-4
2026-04-17vs Woodmont - McAndrewWon 20
W#1 DoublesZach Bateman / Ansley Astuto vs Lauren Huff / David Heeman6-4, 6-2
W#2 DoublesKyle Gray / Tiffany Simpson vs Matthew Washabaugh / Charlotte Mcandrew6-2, 6-4
2026-04-03vs Woodmont - McAndrewWon 20
W#1 DoublesZach Bateman / Ansley Astuto vs Paul Mcandrew / Crystal Meers-Bobo6-3, 6-2
W#2 DoublesKyle Gray / Tiffany Simpson vs Matthew Washabaugh / Charlotte Mcandrew6-4, 6-4
2026-03-27vs Woodmont - McAndrewWon 10
W#1 DoublesZach Bateman / Malory Bateman vs Paul Mcandrew / Crystal Meers-Bobo6-2, 6-1
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 standings2 teams · 4.0
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Copper Creek - Simpson411237108
2Woodmont - McAndrew1431224167

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 3.76 estimated across 11 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.

4.08
Ansley Astuto
published 4
3.92
Zach Bateman
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
3.86
Trent Lackman
published
3.85
Tiffany Simpson
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.84
Cecily Rich
published 4
3.80
Malory Bateman
published
3.73
Kyle Gray
published
3.69
Felipe Alvarez
published
3.68
Andrea Keeble
published 4
3.64
Natasha Koutnik
published
3.31
Eric Johanos
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.

Zach Bateman + Malory Bateman8165% games+5.4% vs expected
Tiffany Simpson + Kyle Gray123 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.

4
Ansley Astuto
21W–5L career · no lines in 2026
<1%27%73%
4.08
Zach Bateman
37W–8L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%71%29%
3.92
Trent Lackman
15W–9L career · no lines in 2026
1%84%15%
3.86
Tiffany Simpson
45W–25L career · 2 lines in 2026
1%86%13%
3.85
4
Cecily Rich
19W–12L career · no lines in 2026
1%86%13%
3.84
Malory Bateman
30W–14L career · no lines in 2026
2%91%7%
3.80
Kyle Gray
19W–12L career · no lines in 2026
5%92%3%
3.73
Felipe Alvarez
19W–15L career · no lines in 2026
9%89%1%
3.69
4
Andrea Keeble
5W–6L career · no lines in 2026
10%89%1%
3.68
Natasha Koutnik
8W–8L career · no lines in 2026
16%83%<1%
3.64
Eric Johanos
10W–14L career · no lines in 2026
1%90%8%
3.31

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.