Teams

Bonanno-Burns/18s/3.5-2.5/PAC

2026 Man · Cov Tri Level 18 & Over - Women Night

19 players · average NTRP 2.88 / LOUISIANA

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2026-08-05Lost 01
L#1 DoublesCinamon Higbee / Laura Lucas vs Amber Mata / Abby Hunt0-6, 4-6
2026-07-06Lost 01
L#1 DoublesCinamon Higbee / Jeanne Woodrick vs Lauren Parks / Lindsay Maxedon0-6, 1-6
2026-06-10Lost 01
L#1 DoublesKaren Davis / Cinamon Higbee vs Christine Last / Marie Luke2-6, 3-6
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 standings6 teams · Cov Tri Level 18 & Over - Women Night
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Roy/18s/3.5-2.5/SC9125517213
2Bouche-Greer/18s/3.5-2.5/PAC82191124224
3Bonanno-Burns/18s/3.5-2.5/PAC55161430243
4Guillet/18s/3.5-2.5/COQ46151534259
5Anzalone/18s/3.5-2.5/NC2882246315
6Wallace/18s/3.5-2.5/BC2872349331

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 2.80 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.

3.17
Ann Boushie
usually #1 Doubles 49%, also #2 Doubles 23% · published 3
3.03
Molly Burns
usually #2 Doubles 62%, also #3 Doubles 14% · published
3.00
Cinamon Higbee
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
2.97
Laura Bonanno
usually #2 Doubles 53%, also #3 Doubles 29% · published
2.33
Chelsea Clement
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #1 Doubles 20% · published 2.5
2.33
Addie Troxclair
usually #3 Doubles 35%, also #2 Doubles 29% · published 2.5
Jeanne Woodrick
usually #1 Singles 39%, also #3 Doubles 23% · published
Jessica Haley
usually #2 Doubles 39%, also #1 Doubles 39% · published
Joelle Cuevas
usually #3 Doubles 38%, also #2 Doubles 31% · published
Laura Lucas
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 17% · published
Lindsey Matherne
usually #1 Doubles 43%, also #3 Doubles 19% · published
Lise Joffrion
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 36% · published
Nela Otero
usually #3 Doubles 80%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published
Peggy Benit
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Rebecca Sandoz
usually #3 Doubles 44%, also #2 Doubles 35% · published
Sarah Sulzer
usually #3 Doubles 60%, also #1 Doubles 20% · published
Sonia Maltais
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #3 Doubles 40% · published
Stephanie Songy
usually #1 Doubles 56%, also #2 Doubles 28% · published
Taylor Comeaux
usually #3 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · 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.

Rebecca Sandoz + Joelle Cuevas2346% gamesnot enough data
Stephanie Songy + Ann Boushie134 matchesnot enough data
Rebecca Sandoz + Jeanne Woodrick123 matchesnot enough data
Stephanie Songy + Peggy Benit213 matchesnot enough data
Laura Lucas + Ann Boushie213 matchesnot enough data
Molly Burns + Ann Boushie303 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
Ann Boushie
47W–18L career · 34 lines in 2026
<1%11%89%
3.17
Molly Burns
33W–13L career · 20 lines in 2026
<1%43%57%
3.03
3.5
Cinamon Higbee
1W–5L career · type S · 3 lines in 2026
50%50%<1%
3.00
Laura Bonanno
21W–16L career · 17 lines in 2026
<1%59%41%
2.97
2.5
Chelsea Clement
10W–15L career · 15 lines in 2026
0%89%11%
2.33
2.5
Addie Troxclair
14W–12L career · 16 lines in 2026
0%89%11%
2.33
Jeanne Woodrick
10W–21L career · 13 lines in 2026
not enough data
Jessica Haley
21W–3L career · 12 lines in 2026
not enough data
Joelle Cuevas
26W–29L career · 28 lines in 2026
not enough data
Laura Lucas
13W–10L career · 12 lines in 2026
not enough data
Lindsey Matherne
19W–7L career · 19 lines in 2026
not enough data
Lise Joffrion
11W–3L career · 14 lines in 2026
not enough data
Nela Otero
3W–17L career · 5 lines in 2026
not enough data
Peggy Benit
8W–7L career · 7 lines in 2026
not enough data
Rebecca Sandoz
29W–18L career · 23 lines in 2026
not enough data
Sarah Sulzer
5W–0L career · 5 lines in 2026
not enough data
Sonia Maltais
2W–8L career · 5 lines in 2026
not enough data
Stephanie Songy
17W–22L career · 18 lines in 2026
not enough data
Taylor Comeaux
4W–4L career · 4 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.