Teams

FTA18S/HollyTree/Pixley

FTA SINGLES 18 & OVER - FTA Saturday · 4.5 Women Saturday

7 players · average NTRP 4.17 / SOUTH CAROLINA

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 →
Schedule3 played
2025-10-04vs FTA18S/Brookstone/FulbrightWon 21
W#1 SinglesMichelle Sykes vs Sarah Etre5-7, 6-3, 1-0
W#2 SinglesGrace Coleman vs Evelyn Bull6-2, 6-0
L#3 SinglesAmy Austin vs Charlotte Mason4-6, 1-6
2025-09-25vs FTA18S/Brookstone/FulbrightLost 12
L#1 SinglesCali Rusk vs Brennan Ferguson5-7, 4-6
W#2 SinglesEmma Pixley vs Evelyn Bull6-1, 6-1
L#3 SinglesMichelle Sykes vs Charlotte Mason6-3, 2-6, 0-1
2025-09-06vs FTA18S/Brookstone/FulbrightLost 12
L#1 SinglesAmabel Karoub vs Julia Fulbright6-2, 4-3
L#2 SinglesRobyn Yarborough vs Kerry Howard3-6, 2-6
W#3 SinglesAmy Austin vs Kristen Burton6-2, 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 standings for 4.5 Women Saturday have not been collected yet. Where we have them we show every team in the flight ranked, with this team highlighted. The crawler is still filling in older seasons and flights.

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 3.77 estimated across 6 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.

Amabel Karoub
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 4.5
4.12
Emma Pixley
usually #2 Singles 100% · published
3.83
Robyn Yarborough
usually #2 Singles 100% · published
3.77
Amy Austin
usually #3 Singles 75%, also #2 Singles 25% · published 4
3.72
Cali Rusk
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #1 Singles 50% · published 4
3.68
Grace Coleman
usually #2 Singles 100% · published
3.51
Michelle Sykes
usually #1 Singles 75%, also #3 Singles 25% · 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.

Emma Pixley + Cali Rusk3251% games+13.2% vs expected
Michelle Sykes + Amy Austin224 matchesnot enough data
Michelle Sykes + Cali Rusk404 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.

4.5
Amabel Karoub
1W–1L career · type S · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Emma Pixley
18W–7L career · 1 line in 2025
no projection at this level
4.12
Robyn Yarborough
3W–12L career · 1 line in 2025
89%11%<1%
3.83
4
Amy Austin
40W–32L career · 4 lines in 2025
3%92%5%
3.77
4
Cali Rusk
24W–12L career · 2 lines in 2025
5%92%2%
3.72
Grace Coleman
16W–12L career · 1 line in 2025
99%1%<1%
3.68
Michelle Sykes
56W–35L career · 4 lines in 2025
<1%46%54%
3.51

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.