Teams

Alamo Heights - Thompson 4.0

2026 18 & OVER SPRING WEEKEND WOMEN · 4.0 Women Saturday

19 players · average NTRP 4.00 / TEXAS

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 →
Flight standings3 teams · 4.0 Women Saturday
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Alamo Heights - Thompson 4.055282250413
2Shavano Senoritas28193170522
3AH 18+Saturday4.0 Pichot28153575510

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 3.68 estimated across 18 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.

3.99
Kim Williford
usually #2 Singles 100% · published
3.89
Ava Wood
usually #2 Singles 100% · published 4
3.80
Zdenka Edgar
published
3.78
Marianne Ryan
published
3.76
Kristine Pak
published
3.74
Terrilee Tatum
published
3.73
Pauline Bourgeois
published
3.71
Susan Danielson
published
3.71
Connie Koch
published 4
3.70
Julie Schawe
published
3.67
Suzanna Harrison
published
3.64
3.62
Jill Hurd
published
3.60
Anita Wilkinson
published 4
3.58
Tammie Thompson
published
3.54
Constance Hassan
published 4
3.48
Melissa Rimmelin
published
3.38
Terry Holcomb
published
MacY Valdez
usually #2 Singles 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.

Pauline Bourgeois + Suzanna Harrison5449% games+5.4% vs expected
Susan Danielson + Zdenka Edgar5160% games+4.5% vs expected
Pauline Bourgeois + Carol Drisko-Hunter3354% games−2.2% vs expected
Pauline Bourgeois + Anita Wilkinson2446% games−5.3% vs expected
Anita Wilkinson + Marianne Ryan3647% games−6.1% vs expected
Constance Hassan + Carol Drisko-Hunter1529% games−12.0% vs expected
Zdenka Edgar + Suzanna Harrison314 matchesnot enough data
Kristine Pak + Terry Holcomb044 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.

Kim Williford
18W–10L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%52%48%
3.99
4
Ava Wood
11W–20L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%78%22%
3.89
Zdenka Edgar
30W–15L career · no lines in 2026
2%91%8%
3.80
Marianne Ryan
7W–11L career · no lines in 2026
2%92%6%
3.78
Kristine Pak
11W–11L career · no lines in 2026
3%93%4%
3.76
Terrilee Tatum
3W–4L career · no lines in 2026
4%92%3%
3.74
Pauline Bourgeois
27W–26L career · no lines in 2026
5%92%3%
3.73
Susan Danielson
18W–25L career · no lines in 2026
6%92%2%
3.71
4
Connie Koch
3W–11L career · no lines in 2026
7%91%2%
3.71
Julie Schawe
7W–5L career · no lines in 2026
8%91%2%
3.70
Suzanna Harrison
22W–22L career · no lines in 2026
12%87%1%
3.67
4
Carol Drisko-Hunter
14W–28L career · no lines in 2026
17%83%<1%
3.64
Jill Hurd
10W–20L career · no lines in 2026
20%79%<1%
3.62
4
Anita Wilkinson
14W–28L career · no lines in 2026
25%75%<1%
3.60
Tammie Thompson
5W–6L career · no lines in 2026
29%71%<1%
3.58
4
Constance Hassan
9W–16L career · no lines in 2026
40%60%<1%
3.54
Melissa Rimmelin
5W–6L career · no lines in 2026
57%43%<1%
3.48
Terry Holcomb
8W–13L career · no lines in 2026
<1%81%19%
3.38
MacY Valdez
1W–1L career · 1 line 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.