Teams

Englert/18s/3.0/SC

2025 Man · Cov Mixed 18 & Over

17 players · average NTRP 3.33 / LOUISIANA

View scouting list →

Flight standings for Cov Mixed 18 & Over 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 3.07 estimated across 2 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.

3.31
Carson Abrams
usually #1 Doubles 56%, also #2 Doubles 28% · published 3.5
Chase Ranlett
usually #1 Doubles 36%, also #2 Doubles 29% · published 3.5
2.83
Amanda Myers
usually #2 Doubles 44%, also #1 Doubles 22% · published 3
Donald Rigaud
usually #3 Doubles 36%, also #1 Doubles 27% · published
Erin Englert
usually #3 Doubles 42%, also #2 Doubles 29% · published
Erin Roy
usually #2 Doubles 36%, also #1 Doubles 36% · published
Franco Centanni
usually #2 Doubles 48%, also #1 Doubles 38% · published
Jake Springer
usually #1 Doubles 46%, also #3 Doubles 36% · published
Jamie Quartano
usually #1 Doubles 52%, also #1 Singles 28% · published
Kannon Otillio
usually #3 Doubles 41%, also #1 Doubles 18% · published
Karen Judlin
usually #2 Doubles 52%, also #1 Singles 19% · published
Lacey Schwab
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 28% · published
Mallory Skarica
usually #3 Doubles 35%, also #1 Singles 26% · published
Melisa Keo
usually #3 Doubles 58%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published
Pasko Skarica
usually #1 Doubles 53%, also #2 Doubles 18% · published
Paul Roy
usually #2 Doubles 44%, also #1 Doubles 39% · published
Taylor Fernandez
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · 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.

Lacey Schwab + Erin Roy12366% gamesnot enough data
Melisa Keo + Taylor Fernandez7260% gamesnot enough data
Erin Roy + Paul Roy5069% gamesnot enough data
Lacey Schwab + Jamie Quartano303 matchesnot enough data
Karen Judlin + Donald Rigaud123 matchesnot enough data
Franco Centanni + Paul Roy213 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
Carson Abrams
23W–4L career · 18 lines in 2025
1%90%9%
3.31
3.5
Chase Ranlett
11W–4L career · 13 lines in 2025
not enough data
3
Amanda Myers
22W–14L career · 22 lines in 2025
1%88%12%
2.83
Donald Rigaud
25W–7L career · 21 lines in 2025
not enough data
Erin Englert
26W–16L career · 24 lines in 2025
not enough data
Erin Roy
28W–10L career · 22 lines in 2025
not enough data
Franco Centanni
21W–8L career · 21 lines in 2025
not enough data
Jake Springer
17W–5L career · 11 lines in 2025
not enough data
Jamie Quartano
52W–1L career · 29 lines in 2025
not enough data
Kannon Otillio
21W–4L career · 15 lines in 2025
not enough data
Karen Judlin
29W–13L career · 21 lines in 2025
not enough data
Lacey Schwab
40W–11L career · 18 lines in 2025
not enough data
Mallory Skarica
10W–30L career · 21 lines in 2025
not enough data
Melisa Keo
19W–3L career · 12 lines in 2025
not enough data
Pasko Skarica
14W–8L career · 16 lines in 2025
not enough data
Paul Roy
26W–5L career · 23 lines in 2025
not enough data
Taylor Fernandez
11W–4L career · 4 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.