Teams

Cox/META

2026 Combo 40 & over-META · 6.5 Senior Women

12 players · average NTRP 3.17 / TENNESSEE

View scouting list →
Schedule4 upcoming · 2 played
Sep 6 4:00 PM
Ida Jones
Sep 15 6:30 PM
Borden Park
Sep 21 6:30 PM
Liberty Bell Tennis Center
Sep 27 4:00 PM
Liberty Bell Tennis Center
2026-08-31vs Hagood6.5/METALost 12
W#1 DoublesSarah LaGuardia / Lynne Little vs Sandra Cook / Keo Jur6-4, 7-5
L#2 DoublesHolli Cox / Jan Goodsell vs Jane Dean / Pam Mobley1-6, 2-6
L#3 DoublesLinda Cowart / Mary Warner vs Shannon Hinkle / Makie Kordamiri3-6, 0-6
2026-08-23vs Hagood6.5/METALost 03
L#1 DoublesHolli Cox / Anneke Self vs Theresa Boyd / Anita Jilton6-4, 1-6, 0-1
L#2 DoublesJan Goodsell / Holly Grammer vs Annette Clemons / Makie Kordamiri3-6, 0-6
L#3 DoublesBarb Janiszewski / Mary Warner vs Pam Mobley / Kari Holt1-6, 6-3, 0-1
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 · 6.5 Senior Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Cox/META000000
2Hagood6.5/META000000

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 3.01 estimated across 12 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.

3.51
Holli Cox
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.40
Rachel Fogg
published
3.17
Sarah LaGuardia
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.16
Lynne Little
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.15
Dana Wenzell
published 3.5
3.06
Holly Grammer
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.99
Regan Jordan
published
2.95
Jan Goodsell
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.90
Jean Swindle
published
2.78
Anneke Self
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.60
Barb Janiszewski
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.49
Linda Cowart
usually #3 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.

Lynne Little + Sarah LaGuardia224 matchesnot enough data
Sarah LaGuardia + Holly Grammer134 matchesnot enough data
Regan Jordan + Dana Wenzell033 matchesnot enough data
Anneke Self + Holli Cox123 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.

Holli Cox
10W–12L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%47%53%
3.51
Rachel Fogg
5W–3L career · no lines in 2026
<1%75%25%
3.40
Sarah LaGuardia
13W–19L career · 1 line in 2026
11%88%1%
3.17
Lynne Little
31W–13L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%13%87%
3.16
3.5
Dana Wenzell
4W–17L career · no lines in 2026
14%86%1%
3.15
Holly Grammer
9W–13L career · 1 line in 2026
35%65%<1%
3.06
Regan Jordan
16W–22L career · no lines in 2026
<1%53%47%
2.99
Jan Goodsell
2W–7L career · 2 lines in 2026
64%36%<1%
2.95
Jean Swindle
3W–6L career · no lines in 2026
77%23%<1%
2.90
3
Anneke Self
8W–11L career · 1 line in 2026
2%92%5%
2.78
3
Barb Janiszewski
12W–18L career · 1 line in 2026
24%75%<1%
2.60
Linda Cowart
3W–9L career · 1 line in 2026
52%48%<1%
2.49

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.