Teams

Sunpro-Belliston/Anderson

2023 Fall Indoor League-Weekday · 3.0W

10 players · average NTRP 3.19 / UTAH

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2023-12-13vs Park City MARC-Krueger/ByrneWon 20
W#1 Female DoublesShannon Fredericks / Liz Rowley vs Kathleen DiCesaris / Dannan Siano6-3, 6-1
W#2 Female DoublesRaquel Moss / Kim Ward vs Cynthia Perry / Melanie Schlachter7-5, 3-1
2023-12-08vs Red Ledges-Overton/WoodSplit 22
L#1 Female DoublesGina Anderson / Cyndi Madsen vs Jessica Menlove / Carly Johnston2-6, 3-6
L#1 Female SinglesShannon Fredericks vs Clarissa McLeod4-6, 6-4, 0-1
W#2 Female DoublesRaquel Moss / Jill Marsh vs Megan Overton / Shana Wood2-6, 6-1, 1-0
W#3 Female DoublesLiz Rowley / Kim Ward vs Melissa Smith / Giuliana Willis6-3, 6-2
2023-12-06vs Sports Mall-Weaver/MajorsWon 20
W#1 Female DoublesRaquel Moss / Jill Marsh vs Karlene Johnston / Lisa Beames6-2, 5-6, 1-0
W#2 Female DoublesCyndi Madsen / Kim Ward vs Kari Majors / Dawn Farrell6-3, 4-2
2023-11-29vs Sunpro-MarshallWon 20
W#1 Female DoublesCyndi Madsen / Raquel Moss vs Carrie Jensen / Elizabeth West4-6, 5-2, 1-0
W#3 Female DoublesGina Anderson / Shannon Fredericks vs Christina Marshall / Sue Ellen Vincent5-7, 3-1, 1-0
2023-11-08vs Cottonwood Club-Ricker/HaverkostLost 12
L#1 Female DoublesCyndi Madsen / Raquel Moss vs Taylor Haverkost / Lori Carter0-6, 3-6
W#1 Female SinglesLiz Rowley vs Jamuna Nielsen6-2, 6-0
L#2 Female DoublesShannon Fredericks / Cherylin Winkel vs Krissie Summerhays / Katie Winson3-6, 2-6
W#1 Female DoublesGina Anderson / Cherylin Winkel vs Mary Jane Swalberg / Nooshin Prasthofer6-4, 6-2
W#1 Female SinglesShannon Fredericks vs Penny Gambill7-6, 2-0
W#2 Female DoublesJill Marsh / Raquel Moss vs Mary Peterson / Staci Dansie6-0, 6-1
W#3 Female DoublesLiz Rowley / Beatriz Velazquez vs Mary Jayne Child / Hege Farnsworth6-2, 6-0
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 standings13 teams · 3.0W
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Sports Mall-Weaver/Majors6016819164
2Provo High School-Page5116820179
3Sunpro-Belliston/Anderson4216821176
4Ivory Ridge-McCord/Wily42141022182
5Park City MARC-Krueger/Byrne4215922164
6Wasatch Rec Center-Studdert/McBride3211922173
7Sunpro-Marshall33121227181
8Cottonwood Club-Ricker/Haverkost33111329205
9Sunpro-Donaldson/Cardall2381227184
10Sports Mall-George/Wood24121227202
11Red Ledges-Overton/Wood15111329217
12Ogden-Cox/Johnstun1571737243
13Salt Lake Tennis-Farnsworth/Bickmore0632146275

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 3.03 estimated across 7 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.

3.62
Jill Marsh
published
3.21
Liz Rowley
usually #3 Female Doubles 50%, also #1 Female Singles 25% · published 3.5
3.15
Shannon Fredericks
usually #1 Female Singles 40%, also #2 Female Doubles 20% · published 3.5
3.03
Cherylin Winkel
usually #1 Female Doubles 50%, also #2 Female Doubles 50% · published 3.5
2.87
Raquel Moss
usually #2 Female Doubles 50%, also #1 Female Doubles 50% · published 3
2.79
Cyndi Madsen
usually #1 Female Doubles 75%, also #2 Female Doubles 25% · published 3
Gina Anderson
published 3
2.57
Kim Ward
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.

Liz Rowley + Jill Marsh16265% games+8.5% vs expected
LaRicia Belliston + Shannon Fredericks4163% games+7.6% vs expected
Cyndi Madsen + Gina Anderson5551% games+6.8% vs expected
Beatriz Velazquez + Jill Marsh7163% games+5.4% vs expected
Cyndi Madsen + Cherylin Winkel13859% games+5.0% vs expected
Cyndi Madsen + Raquel Moss331758% games+2.9% vs expected
LaRicia Belliston + Raquel Moss121551% games+1.0% vs expected
Shannon Fredericks + Beatriz Velazquez5158% games+0.9% vs expected
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.

Jill Marsh
100W–41L career · no lines in 2023
17%82%<1%
3.62
3.5
Liz Rowley
98W–66L career · 4 lines in 2023
5%93%1%
3.21
3.5
Shannon Fredericks
89W–63L career · 5 lines in 2023
13%86%<1%
3.15
3.5
Cherylin Winkel
112W–142L career · 2 lines in 2023
42%58%<1%
3.03
3
Raquel Moss
123W–111L career · 6 lines in 2023
<1%85%15%
2.87
3
Cyndi Madsen
120W–134L career · 4 lines in 2023
1%93%6%
2.79
3
Beatriz Velazquez
58W–39L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
3
Gina Anderson
46W–64L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
3
LaRicia Belliston
85W–115L career · no lines in 2023
30%70%<1%
2.57
Kim Ward
2W–23L career · no lines in 2023
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.