Teams

Thiels/18/2.5-3-3.5/TWN/BTC

2026 Shrev-Boss Tri-Level 18 & Over - Women Night · 3.5,3.0,2.5 Shrev

15 players · average NTRP 2.94 / LOUISIANA

View scouting list →
Schedule8 played
W#3 DoublesKaitlin Wood / Christine Mcwilliams vs Alison Luttkus / Kelly Wheeler6-4, 1-6, 1-0
2026-07-28vs Bush/18/2.5-3-3.5/TWN/QTCWon 10
W#3 DoublesChristine Mcwilliams / Jacqueline Gibson vs Valerie Barcelona / Holly Johnson6-4, 6-0
2026-07-21vs Gifford-Cooper/18/2.5-3-3.5/TWN/STCCSplit 11
L#1 DoublesEne Wang / Mary Ward vs Margaret Gifford / Emily Burns5-7, 3-6
W#3 DoublesKaitlin Wood / Ashley Paz vs Molly Quinnett / Jennifer Beruvides6-4, 6-4
2026-07-14vs Matheny/18/2.5-3-3.5/TWN/STCCWon 20
W#1 DoublesAllison Santos / Mary Ward vs Courtney Matheny / Christie Cox6-4, 6-7, 1-0
W#3 DoublesJacqueline Gibson / Kaitlin Wood vs Aimee Deere / Shannon Davidson6-4, 6-1
2026-07-07vs Griffin-Dunn/18/TWN/2.5-3-3.5/QTCWon 10
W#3 DoublesChristine Mcwilliams / Kaitlin Wood vs Judy Rose / Liz Navarre6-4, 6-3
2026-06-30vs Hand/18/2.5-3-3.5/TWN/CTCWon 10
W#3 DoublesAshley Paz / Camille Rhoads vs Heather Lollar / Susan English6-2, 7-6
W#3 DoublesChristine Mcwilliams / Meghan Brown vs Sarah Drummond / Nikki Hanna6-4, 6-2
2026-06-17vs Watters/18.5/2.5-3-3.5/TWN/POTCWon 20
W#1 DoublesMary Ward / Rachael Deere vs Laura Love / Katherine Hebert4-6, 6-4, 1-0
W#3 DoublesChristine Mcwilliams / Kaitlin Wood vs Anne Thomas / Calli Lorant3-6, 6-1, 1-0
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 standings10 teams · 3.5,3.0,2.5 Shrev
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Thiels/18/2.5-3-3.5/TWN/BTC8019518202
2Douglas-Bunyard/18/2.5-3-3.5/TWN/BTC6216817173
3Haynes-Mitchell/18/2.5-3-3.5/TWN/POTC5317718179
4Griffin-Dunn/18/TWN/2.5-3-3.5/QTC44131126213
5Hand/18/2.5-3-3.5/TWN/CTC44121226209
6Watters/18.5/2.5-3-3.5/TWN/POTC44121230225
7Matheny/18/2.5-3-3.5/TWN/STCC44101430226
8Bush/18/2.5-3-3.5/TWN/QTC2681635250
9Gonzalez/18/2.5-3-3.5/TWN/BTC2661839251
10Gifford-Cooper/18/2.5-3-3.5/TWN/STCC1771737254

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 2.92 estimated across 15 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.

3.56
Ene Wang
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.35
Mary Ward
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.34
Bailey Berry
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.29
Rachael Deere
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published
3.20
Crissy Burchett
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published 3.5
3.12
Jodi Marvin
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published
3.02
Madeline Slack
usually #2 Doubles 57%, also #3 Doubles 43% · published
3.00
Valarie Thiels
usually #2 Doubles 56%, also #3 Doubles 44% · published
2.99
Heather Floyd
usually #2 Doubles 63%, also #3 Doubles 38% · published 3
2.77
Amanda Urian
published 3
2.63
Ashley Paz
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
2.57
Kaitlin Wood
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.38
Christine Mcwilliams
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
2.31
Jacqueline Gibson
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
2.21
Camille Rhoads
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
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.

Mary Ward + Valarie Thiels14259% games+7.5% vs expected
Rachael Deere + Crissy Burchett8359% games+6.7% vs expected
Jacqueline Gibson + Kaitlin Wood12952% games+6.3% vs expected
Madeline Slack + Valarie Thiels5158% games+5.9% vs expected
Valarie Thiels + Heather Floyd16658% games+4.9% vs expected
Jodi Marvin + Crissy Burchett4449% games−2.8% vs expected
Ene Wang + Rachael Deere404 matchesnot enough data
Christine Mcwilliams + Kaitlin Wood314 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
Ene Wang
72W–29L career · 6 lines in 2026
<1%32%68%
3.56
Mary Ward
39W–12L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%87%13%
3.35
3.5
Bailey Berry
45W–17L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%88%12%
3.34
Rachael Deere
95W–48L career · 5 lines in 2026
1%93%5%
3.29
3.5
Crissy Burchett
58W–27L career · 5 lines in 2026
6%93%1%
3.20
Jodi Marvin
41W–28L career · 5 lines in 2026
18%82%<1%
3.12
Madeline Slack
46W–32L career · 7 lines in 2026
<1%43%57%
3.02
Valarie Thiels
87W–46L career · 9 lines in 2026
<1%50%50%
3.00
3
Heather Floyd
68W–35L career · 8 lines in 2026
<1%53%47%
2.99
3
Amanda Urian
30W–23L career · no lines in 2026
2%94%4%
2.77
2.5
Ashley Paz
18W–17L career · 2 lines in 2026
0%16%84%
2.63
Kaitlin Wood
43W–25L career · 5 lines in 2026
0%29%71%
2.57
2.5
Christine Mcwilliams
22W–33L career · 5 lines in 2026
0%82%18%
2.38
2.5
Jacqueline Gibson
33W–41L career · 2 lines in 2026
0%93%7%
2.31
2.5
Camille Rhoads
6W–8L career · type S · 1 line in 2026
0%99%1%
2.21

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.