Teams

Yadkin/Hinshelwood/18+4.0 Singles

2025 Yadkin Valley Singles 18 & Over · Women 4.0 - Wednesday Night

6 players · average NTRP / NORTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule8 played
2025-07-23vs Yadkin/Ehrig/Morgan/18 4.0Lost 12
L#1 SinglesKimberly Busse vs Katherine Beach6-7, 2-6
W#2 SinglesHolly Hinshelwood vs Jocelyn Moye6-3, 6-1
L#3 SinglesSarah Eugenia Gallo vs Molly Ehrig0-6, 0-6
2025-07-16vs Yadkin/Ehrig/Morgan/18 4.0Lost 12
L#1 SinglesMaria Nikas vs Molly Ehrig0-6, 1-6
L#2 SinglesHolly Hinshelwood vs Emily McMillen1-6, 2-6
W#3 SinglesKimberly Busse vs Clarissa Tatum6-4, 6-3
2025-07-09vs Yadkin/Ehrig/Morgan/18 4.0Won 21
L#1 SinglesKimberly Busse vs Molly Ehrig2-6, 1-6
W#2 SinglesJamie Galasso vs Kerri Morgan6-2, 6-4
W#3 SinglesSarah Eugenia Gallo vs Jocelyn Moye6-4, 6-2
2025-07-06vs Yadkin/Ehrig/Morgan/18 4.0Lost 12
L#1 SinglesKimberly Busse vs Emily McMillen1-6, 4-6
L#2 SinglesKim Haynes vs Katherine Beach2-6, 2-6
W#3 SinglesSarah Eugenia Gallo vs Kerri Morgan7-5, 3-6, 1-0
2025-07-02vs Yadkin/Ehrig/Morgan/18 4.0Split 11
L#1 SinglesJamie Galasso vs Emily McMillen3-6, 2-6
W#3 SinglesHolly Hinshelwood vs Meghan de Young6-3, 6-3
2025-06-25vs Yadkin/Ehrig/Morgan/18 4.0Won 30
W#1 SinglesHolly Hinshelwood vs Kerri Morgan6-4, 6-2
W#2 SinglesKimberly Busse vs Clarissa Tatum6-2, 6-1
W#3 SinglesSarah Eugenia Gallo vs Meghan de Young4-6, 6-2, 1-0
2025-06-11vs Yadkin/Ehrig/Morgan/18 4.0Lost 02
L#1 SinglesKimberly Busse vs Molly Ehrig0-6, 0-6
L#2 SinglesJamie Galasso vs Katherine Beach1-6, 2-6
2025-06-04vs Yadkin/Ehrig/Morgan/18 4.0Won 21
L#1 SinglesHolly Hinshelwood vs Emily McMillen2-6, 0-6
W#2 SinglesKimberly Busse vs Kerri Morgan6-2, 6-3
W#3 SinglesJamie Galasso vs Meghan de Young6-1, 6-2
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 Women 4.0 - Wednesday Night 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 3.60 estimated across 5 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.

3.86
Holly Hinshelwood
usually #1 Singles 40%, also #2 Singles 40% · published
3.67
Jamie Galasso
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #3 Singles 25% · published
3.67
Kimberly Busse
usually #1 Singles 57%, also #2 Singles 29% · published
3.52
Sarah Eugenia Gallo
usually #3 Singles 100% · published
3.29
Kim Haynes
usually #2 Singles 100% · published
Maria Nikas
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
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.

Holly Hinshelwood
23W–10L career · 5 lines in 2025
1%84%16%
3.86
Jamie Galasso
10W–5L career · 4 lines in 2025
11%88%1%
3.67
Kimberly Busse
18W–17L career · 7 lines in 2025
11%88%1%
3.67
Sarah Eugenia Gallo
27W–9L career · 4 lines in 2025
<1%43%57%
3.52
Kim Haynes
21W–12L career · 1 line in 2025
2%91%7%
3.29
Maria Nikas
0W–3L career · 1 line 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.