Teams

OAK SCHARTZ

2025 FW Adult 18 & Over League - Ladies · Friday Ladies 2.5

10 players · average NTRP 2.75 / TEXAS

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2025-04-11vs BIR CONRAD/LINGTONLost 02
L#1 DoublesLisa Waters / Priscilla Vinson vs Kayli Conrad / Shannon Morgan7-5, 4-6, 0-1
L#2 DoublesLamar Muro / Taylor Robertson vs Erica Mulcahy / Tia McBrien6-1, 4-6, 0-1
2025-03-14vs TCU MEYER/THOMASLost 12
L#1 DoublesChristine Coro / Cassandra Cornell vs Crystal Thomas / Allison Khan2-6, 1-6
L#1 SinglesHolly Caley vs Kelsey Wilkins4-6, 6-4, 0-1
W#2 DoublesLysa Tynes / Pam Schartz vs crystal abuaitah / Keri Grady6-1, 6-3
2025-03-07vs SO JENNINGS/VOIGTWon 21
W#1 DoublesLisa Waters / Priscilla Vinson vs Lizzie Voigt / Kelly Dakan6-3, 7-5
W#1 SinglesChristine Coro vs Callie Jennings6-4, 6-3
L#2 DoublesLamar Muro / Laneva Dison vs Kelley Burt / Lizzie Whitmire6-2, 4-6, 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 standings for Friday Ladies 2.5 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 2.42 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.

2.81
Andrea Landes
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3
2.48
Taylor Robertson
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #2 Singles 33% · published
2.36
Holly Caley
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
2.31
Lamar Muro
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Christine Coro
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 2.5
2.15
Priscilla Vinson
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
Cassandra Cornell
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Laneva Dison
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Lysa Tynes
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Pam Schartz
usually #2 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.

Priscilla Vinson + Holly Caley123 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.

3
Andrea Landes
10W–15L career · 4 lines in 2025
1%90%8%
2.81
Taylor Robertson
3W–9L career · 3 lines in 2025
56%44%<1%
2.48
Holly Caley
2W–8L career · 2 lines in 2025
83%17%<1%
2.36
Lamar Muro
0W–6L career · 2 lines in 2025
91%9%<1%
2.31
2.5
Christine Coro
1W–2L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Priscilla Vinson
8W–12L career · 4 lines in 2025
99%1%<1%
2.15
Cassandra Cornell
0W–1L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Laneva Dison
0W–1L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Lysa Tynes
2W–1L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Pam Schartz
2W–1L 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.