Teams

Eagle Gals

2021 USTA ADULT 40 & OVER - BOISE · TV

14 players · average NTRP 3.78 / IDAHO

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 standings13 teams · TV
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Lunatic Fringe112421027357
2Ladytennisity112381438409
3Shot Sisters112351745431
4Sets Appeal94292350423
540 and Fabbiulous85312151434
6#hit it85272560471
7Over Served76302253438
8Eagle Gals67272562482
94Ever Yours58252764485
10Casual Sets310193375518
11Each Hit 4.031084490578
12Sharks211173578542
1340-Love01334999613

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 3.46 estimated across 9 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.

3.91
3.73
Kimberly Cowley
published 4
3.59
Christine Elwer
published 4
3.59
3.53
Karen Mangum
published 4
3.37
Debbie Davies
published 3.5
3.30
Nancy Mallory
published 3.5
Amanda Steele
usually #3 Doubles 86%, also #2 Doubles 14% · published 3.5
3.09
Mary Adcox
published 3.5
3.03
Monica Reagan
published
Lori van Alfen
usually #1 Doubles 36%, also #3 Doubles 27% · published
RaQuel Montgomery
usually #3 Doubles 46%, also #1 Singles 27% · published
Rochelle Martin
usually #3 Doubles 44%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
Vicki Osweiler
usually #2 Doubles 44%, also #3 Doubles 33% · 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.

Katheryn Burriesci + Kimberly Cowley7650% games+9.1% vs expected
Nancy Mallory + Katheryn Burriesci6450% games+0.5% vs expected
Christine Elwer + Katheryn Burriesci15458% games−0.2% vs expected
Kimberly Cowley + Lori van Alfen503254% gamesnot enough data
Vicki Osweiler + Debbie Davies111947% gamesnot enough data
Katheryn Burriesci + RaQuel Montgomery101252% gamesnot enough data
Katheryn Burriesci + Lori van Alfen12456% gamesnot enough data
Nancy Mallory + Kimberly Cowley9554% gamesnot 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.

4
Christina Peterman
138W–91L career · no lines in 2021
<1%76%23%
3.91
4
Kimberly Cowley
140W–95L career · no lines in 2021
4%94%2%
3.73
4
Christine Elwer
156W–133L career · no lines in 2021
23%76%<1%
3.59
4
Katheryn Burriesci
108W–95L career · no lines in 2021
25%75%<1%
3.59
4
Karen Mangum
72W–60L career · no lines in 2021
42%58%<1%
3.53
3.5
Debbie Davies
41W–54L career · no lines in 2021
<1%85%15%
3.37
3.5
Nancy Mallory
189W–137L career · no lines in 2021
1%93%6%
3.30
3.5
Amanda Steele
65W–129L career · 7 lines in 2021
not enough data
3.5
Mary Adcox
151W–195L career · no lines in 2021
23%76%<1%
3.09
Monica Reagan
106W–95L career · no lines in 2021
42%58%<1%
3.03
Lori van Alfen
51W–35L career · 11 lines in 2021
not enough data
RaQuel Montgomery
44W–20L career · 11 lines in 2021
not enough data
Rochelle Martin
13W–14L career · 9 lines in 2021
not enough data
Vicki Osweiler
53W–66L career · 9 lines in 2021
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.