Kirsten Hancock
56 matches · 36W–20L · seasons 2025–2027
Captains: add Kirsten Hancock to your scout list and get a weekly note on what they did. Create a free account to start one.
Match history56 matches
W
expectation pending — we’re still fetching an opponent’s record
6-1, 6-3
W
Jessenia Gomez / Chris Meyer
doesn’t count toward your NTRP rating
7-5, 6-1
W
expectation pending — we’re still fetching an opponent’s record
7-5, 6-0
W
expectation pending — we’re still fetching an opponent’s record
2-6, 7-6, 1-0
W
expectation pending — we’re still fetching an opponent’s record
6-2, 6-1
W
Janie Stephanow / Sarah Ross
expectation pending — we’re still fetching an opponent’s record
6-0, 6-2
L
expectation pending — we’re still fetching an opponent’s record
4-6, 1-6
L
expectation pending — we’re still fetching an opponent’s record
3-6, 2-6
L
expectation pending — we’re still fetching an opponent’s record
2-6, 5-7
L
expectation pending — we’re still fetching an opponent’s record
6-4, 3-6, 0-1
Teams43 teams · 2022–2027
Over timerating by season, and how you rank
By level6 levels played
3.0
3W–0L
not enough matches yet
3.5
77.1%
27W–8L · 60.7% of games
4.0
37.5%
3W–5L · 41.5% of games
6.5
1W–0L
not enough matches yet
7.5
14.3%
1W–6L · 37.1% of games
7.0mixed
1W–1L
not enough matches yet
Games won matters more than matches won — NTRP adjusts on margins.
By lineusually #1 Singles, 38% of the time
#1 Singles
38%
21 matches
#1 Doubles
25%
14 matches
#2 Doubles
18%
10 matches
#3 Doubles
11%
6 matches
#2 Singles
9%
5 matches
How often, across every team and every match we hold — including ones that do not count toward a rating. Advanced stats has a court-position table too, and it answers a different question: how well you do there, over matches that count. A team’s own page shows how that one team uses you.
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.
The mark of great sportsmen is not how good they are at their best, but how good they are at their worst.