Teams

WNC Qualifying Team

Adult 18 & Over USTA WNC 2026 · 18+ Adult Women 5.0 Mon

7 players · average NTRP 5.00 / NORTH 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
2026-05-23vs WNCC Mohammed (HRC)Won 20
W#1 DoublesJessica Vest / Heather Gage vs Carlista Mohammed / Krysten Shepherd6-3, 5-7, 1-0
W#2 DoublesBrittney Desmond / Zoe Campbell vs Savannah Smith / Tahnne Sesma Alvarez6-4, 7-6
2026-05-16vs WNCC Mohammed (HRC)Won 21
W#1 DoublesZoe Campbell / Emma Pixley vs Carlista Mohammed / Yuka Angel7-5, 7-5
L#1 SinglesJessica Vest vs Jordan Denesik3-6, 4-6
W#2 DoublesCurran Carver / Amanda Sherman vs Krysten Shepherd / Jernine Carter6-2, 4-6, 1-0
2026-05-16vs WNCC Mohammed (HRC)Won 20
W#1 DoublesAmanda Sherman / Emma Pixley vs Yuka Angel / Jernine Carter6-3, 7-5
W#1 SinglesCurran Carver vs Jordan Denesik3-6, 6-2, 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 standings2 teams · 18+ Adult Women 5.0 Mon
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1WNC Qualifying Team3063990
2WNCC Mohammed (HRC)03271492

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 4.63 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.

4.89
Curran Carver
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 50% · published 5
4.72
Jessica Vest
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
4.71
Zoe Campbell
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
4.68
Amanda Sherman
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 5
4.67
Brittney Desmond
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 5
4.12
Emma Pixley
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Heather Gage
usually #1 Doubles 100% · 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.

Amanda Sherman + Curran Carver314 matchesnot enough data
Jessica Vest + Emma Pixley123 matchesnot enough data
Brittney Desmond + Zoe Campbell303 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
Curran Carver
8W–4L career · 2 lines in 2026
no projection at this level
4.89
Jessica Vest
6W–5L career · 2 lines in 2026
no projection at this level
4.72
Zoe Campbell
5W–3L career · 2 lines in 2026
no projection at this level
4.71
5
Amanda Sherman
9W–4L career · 2 lines in 2026
no projection at this level
4.68
5
Brittney Desmond
4W–1L career · 1 line in 2026
no projection at this level
4.67
Emma Pixley
18W–7L career · 2 lines in 2026
no projection at this level
4.12
Heather Gage
1W–0L career · 1 line 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.