Teams

Team Wood (CONFIRMED)

USTA Atlanta Summer - Combo Doubles 18 & Over Qualifier · 8.5 Women (Fair Oaks)

12 players · average NTRP 4.40 / GEORGIA

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 →
Schedule2 played
2025-08-09vs GA 8.5W 18 & Over (Richardson)Won 21
W#1 DoublesAmy Glennon / Elaine Stice vs Michele McBride / Lynsey Richardson8-6
L#2 DoublesKatherine Wood / Caroline Brashier vs Veronica O'Brien / Pam Giddings1-8
W#3 DoublesStacey Mays / Laura Baker vs Tine Buhl / Robin Schorr8-2
2025-08-09vs Team McGowan (CONFIRMED)Won 21
L#1 DoublesElaine Stice / Frances Forte vs Isabelle Coursey / Kyoung Lee8-9
W#2 DoublesKristen Oliver / Brooke Haman vs Jessica McGowan / Rebecca Cross8-5
W#3 DoublesSarah Goldwasser / Katherine Wood vs Ploi Lerner / Kelly Lindquist Fojas8-6
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 standings for 8.5 Women (Fair Oaks) 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 4.06 estimated across 10 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.

4.43
Caroline Brashier
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
4.43
Elaine Stice
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
4.31
DeeDee Worley
published 4.5
4.29
Stacey Mays
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
4.19
Billie Day
published 4.5
4.04
Amy Glennon
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
3.91
Frances Forte
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.86
Brooke Haman
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.62
Sarah Goldwasser
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.49
Katherine Wood
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
Kristen Oliver
published
Laura Baker
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.

Stacey Mays + Billie Day6256% games+7.6% vs expected
Amy Glennon + Stacey Mays9358% games+7.3% vs expected
DeeDee Worley + Stacey Mays213 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.

4.5
Caroline Brashier
13W–4L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%69%31%
4.43
Elaine Stice
44W–13L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%69%31%
4.43
4.5
DeeDee Worley
26W–11L career · no lines in 2025
1%90%9%
4.31
Stacey Mays
36W–10L career · 1 line in 2025
2%92%6%
4.29
4.5
Billie Day
14W–11L career · no lines in 2025
9%90%1%
4.19
4.5
Amy Glennon
49W–17L career · 1 line in 2025
40%60%<1%
4.04
Frances Forte
15W–10L career · 1 line in 2025
73%27%<1%
3.91
4
Brooke Haman
12W–9L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%83%16%
3.86
Sarah Goldwasser
2W–8L career · 1 line in 2025
>99%<1%<1%
3.62
Katherine Wood
26W–14L career · 2 lines in 2025
53%47%<1%
3.49
Kristen Oliver
3W–5L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Laura Baker
25W–19L career · no 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.