Teams

Indy A18 2.5W TBC Banks

Summer USTA Central Indiana Adult 18 & Over · CIN Indy 18 & Over 2.5 Women, S

5 players · average NTRP 2.50 / CENTRAL INDIANA

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 →
Schedule6 played
2026-07-09vs Indy A18 2.5W NHS MeyerWon 10
W#1 DoublesMelissa January / Andrea Sangster vs Eleny Hostetler / Avery Smith6-4, 6-1
2026-06-18vs Indy A18 2.5W JCC FritzWon 10
W#1 DoublesValerie Moore / Natalie Roy vs Tara Pearson / Alysia Fuhrmann6-1, 6-2
2026-06-11vs Indy A18 2.5W CRC MillerSplit 11
W#1 DoublesBarbara Banks / Liz Sewell vs Laura Critchlow / Jessica Craddock6-4, 5-7, 1-0
L#2 DoublesAndrea Sangster / Jerianna Kelly vs Callie Curry / Megan Miller1-6, 0-6
2026-06-04vs Indy A18 2.5W IRCD MaherLost 02
L#1 DoublesNatalie Roy / Valerie Moore vs Louise Lombard / Sandy Herrick2-6, 1-6
L#1 SinglesBarbara Banks vs Nicole Marte6-7, 0-2
2026-05-28Won 20
W#1 DoublesBarbara Banks / Andrea Sangster vs Ashley Braun / Yuliya Mccain6-1, 6-7, 1-0
W#2 DoublesNatalie Roy / Liz Sewell vs Kerry Moore / Jacqueline Chittenden6-0, 6-0
2026-05-14vs Indy A18 2.5W IRCD CarlsonLost 01
L#1 DoublesMelissa January / Tracy Hadden vs Tomo Shimano / Viviane Williams0-6, 0-6
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 standings5 teams · CIN Indy 18 & Over 2.5 Women, S
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Indy A18 2.5W CRC Miller8121617142
2Indy A18 2.5W TBC Banks53141024176
3Indy A18 2.5W NHS Meyer3591532213
4Indy A18 2.5W CH Looney3672042257
5Indy A18 2.5W IRCD Maher2791840273

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 2.27 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.

2.35
Barbara Banks
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 38% · published 2.5
2.30
Natalie Roy
usually #1 Doubles 43%, also #2 Doubles 29% · published
2.29
Andrea Sangster
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 2.5
2.23
Jerianna Kelly
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
2.18
Melissa January
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · 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.

Barbara Banks + Andrea Sangster4154% gamesnot enough data
Barbara Banks + Natalie Roy213 matchesnot enough data
Andrea Sangster + Melissa January123 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.

2.5
Barbara Banks
13W–18L career · 8 lines in 2026
0%85%15%
2.35
Natalie Roy
9W–19L career · 7 lines in 2026
0%93%7%
2.30
2.5
Andrea Sangster
8W–17L career · 3 lines in 2026
0%93%7%
2.29
Jerianna Kelly
3W–5L career · 6 lines in 2026
0%97%3%
2.23
Melissa January
5W–7L career · 3 lines in 2026
0%99%1%
2.18

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.