Teams

HOCO Jackson

2025 · 2026 MATA USTA Tri-Level 18 & Over - Winter

16 players · average NTRP 3.60 / GEORGIA

View scouting list →
Flight standings1 teams · 2026 MATA USTA Tri-Level 18 & Over - Winter
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1HOCO Jackson000000

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 3.45 estimated across 15 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.

3.90
Vanessa Brooks
usually #1 Doubles 73%, also #1 Singles 9% · published
3.89
Sally Velasquez
usually #1 Doubles 44%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.75
Patsy Bendall
usually #1 Doubles 61%, also #3 Doubles 17% · published
3.71
Angie Schwendeman
usually #1 Doubles 77%, also #2 Doubles 15% · published 4
3.71
Jennifer Sweenor
usually #2 Doubles 58%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published
3.59
Marian Wharton
usually #1 Doubles 53%, also #3 Doubles 27% · published
3.56
Traci Ludicke
usually #1 Doubles 34%, also #2 Doubles 32% · published
3.39
Kiara Laurent
usually #1 Doubles 41%, also #2 Doubles 28% · published
3.30
Eima Sims
usually #2 Doubles 46%, also #3 Doubles 27% · published 3.5
3.21
Kannikar Dobney
usually #2 Doubles 41%, also #1 Doubles 35% · published
3.20
Amanda Collins
usually #1 Singles 57%, also #2 Singles 21% · published 3.5
3.16
Stephanie Carlson
usually #1 Doubles 37%, also #1 Singles 26% · published
3.14
Amanda Woods
usually #2 Singles 31%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.11
Emma Warren
usually #2 Doubles 35%, also #1 Doubles 35% · published 3.5
3.10
Jennifer Grady
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 38% · published
Jenny Jackson
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.

Vanessa Brooks + Jennifer Sweenor5056% games+1.5% vs expected
Kannikar Dobney + Emma Warren9656% games+0.5% vs expected
Traci Ludicke + Jennifer Grady4256% games−3.4% vs expected
Patsy Bendall + Angie Schwendeman4451% games−10.8% vs expected
Traci Ludicke + Kiara Laurent224 matchesnot enough data
Traci Ludicke + Angie Schwendeman314 matchesnot enough data
Emma Warren + Kiara Laurent314 matchesnot enough data
Patsy Bendall + Marian Wharton033 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.

Vanessa Brooks
37W–12L career · 11 lines in 2026
<1%77%23%
3.90
Sally Velasquez
34W–13L career · 9 lines in 2026
<1%81%19%
3.89
Patsy Bendall
39W–50L career · 18 lines in 2026
3%95%3%
3.75
4
Angie Schwendeman
20W–23L career · 13 lines in 2026
5%93%1%
3.71
Jennifer Sweenor
39W–26L career · 12 lines in 2026
5%93%1%
3.71
Marian Wharton
37W–37L career · 15 lines in 2026
<1%25%75%
3.59
Traci Ludicke
75W–63L career · 39 lines in 2026
<1%32%68%
3.56
Kiara Laurent
73W–28L career · 31 lines in 2026
<1%79%21%
3.39
3.5
Eima Sims
9W–20L career · 11 lines in 2026
1%92%7%
3.30
Kannikar Dobney
38W–10L career · 17 lines in 2026
5%93%1%
3.21
3.5
Amanda Collins
16W–29L career · 14 lines in 2026
6%93%1%
3.20
Stephanie Carlson
35W–21L career · 18 lines in 2026
11%89%<1%
3.16
3.5
Amanda Woods
27W–37L career · 15 lines in 2026
15%85%<1%
3.14
3.5
Emma Warren
38W–19L career · 17 lines in 2026
20%80%<1%
3.11
Jennifer Grady
19W–27L career · 8 lines in 2026
21%79%<1%
3.10
Jenny Jackson
4W–2L career · no lines in 2026
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.