Teams

UPTA (A) 5.0W 18 & Over (Sherman)

18 & Over · 5.0 Women

8 players · average NTRP 5.00 / SOUTH CAROLINA

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2026-06-13vs SC 5.0W 18 & Over (Walter)Lost 12
L#1 DoublesEmma Pixley / Jessica Vest vs Melissa Thieke / Madison Cook3-6, 6-4, 0-1
L#1 SinglesBrittney Desmond vs Brooke Walter6-2, 2-6, 0-1
W#2 DoublesCurran Carver / Amanda Sherman vs Caroline Holland / Renee Leacock6-4, 6-1
2026-06-13vs AATL 5.0W 18 & Over (Ferguson)Won 30
W#1 DoublesBrittney Desmond / Zoe Campbell vs Carolina Blouin / Marlene Telesford Gardham5-7, 6-0, 1-0
W#1 SinglesJessica Vest vs Katie Mason6-3, 6-1
W#2 DoublesAmanda Sherman / Emma Pixley vs Brennan Ferguson / Jeannette Hammers6-2, 6-4
2026-06-12vs AATL 5.0W 18 & Over (Ferguson)Won 21
W#1 DoublesBrittney Desmond / Zoe Campbell vs Jeannette Hammers / Andrea Mercer7-5, 6-0
L#1 SinglesCurran Carver vs Carolina Blouin2-6, 3-6
W#2 DoublesAmanda Sherman / Jessica Vest vs Brennan Ferguson / Kerry Howard6-1, 6-2
2026-06-12vs SC 5.0W 18 & Over (Walter)Lost 12
L#1 DoublesZoe Campbell / Jessica Vest vs Brooke Walter / Alexandra Dawson4-6, 4-6
W#1 SinglesBrittney Desmond vs Meghan Polk6-2, 7-5
L#2 DoublesCurran Carver / Emma Pixley vs Melissa Thieke / Madison Cook4-6, 7-6, 1-0
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 5.0 Women 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 4.63 estimated across 6 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.

4.89
Curran Carver
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Singles 33% · published 5
4.72
Jessica Vest
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
4.71
Zoe Campbell
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
4.68
Amanda Sherman
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 5
4.67
Brittney Desmond
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 5
4.12
Emma Pixley
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
Heather Gage
published
Molly Lentini
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.

Amanda Sherman + Curran Carver314 matchesnot enough data
Jessica Vest + Emma Pixley123 matchesnot enough data
Brittney Desmond + Zoe Campbell303 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.

5
Curran Carver
8W–4L career · 3 lines in 2026
no projection at this level
4.89
Jessica Vest
6W–5L career · 4 lines in 2026
no projection at this level
4.72
Zoe Campbell
5W–3L career · 3 lines in 2026
no projection at this level
4.71
5
Amanda Sherman
9W–4L career · 3 lines in 2026
no projection at this level
4.68
5
Brittney Desmond
4W–1L career · 4 lines in 2026
no projection at this level
4.67
Emma Pixley
18W–7L career · 3 lines in 2026
no projection at this level
4.12
Heather Gage
1W–0L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Molly Lentini
1W–1L 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.