Teams

CSU GREEN

2021 CTA TWILIGHT - NOCO · WOMEN 3.5 - TWILIGHT - NOCO

8 players · average NTRP 3.50 / COLORADO

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 →
Schedule6 played
2021-09-06vs FCCC PINKWon 20
W#1 DoublesFalguni Gill / Gina Hastings vs Kelli Barber / Kaylyn Shelby2-6, 6-4, 1-0
W#2 DoublesLorena Laffitte / Karen Trevino vs Karen Preiss / Melissa Conlon6-7, 7-6, 1-0
2021-08-23vs TAG MAGENTALost 01
L#2 DoublesKaren Trevino / Monica Bice vs Nikki Ellis / Michelle Sheets1-6, 6-1, 0-1
2021-08-16vs CSU GOLDLost 02
L#1 DoublesGina Hastings / Falguni Gill vs Rachel White / Camille Benton1-6, 4-6
L#1 SinglesKaren Trevino vs Kim Jensen1-6, 1-6
2021-08-09vs HMTC REDWon 10
W#2 DoublesSherri Kravec / Karen Trevino vs Kathy Lynch / Jodi Koronich6-2, 6-4
2021-08-02vs LVTA CRIMSONWon 10
W#1 DoublesSherri Kravec / Gina Hastings vs Amy Black / Ashley Kasprzak6-2, 4-6, 1-0
2021-07-26vs LTWon 20
W#1 DoublesFalguni Gill / Lorena Laffitte vs Alison Halopoff / Julie Ignowski6-0, 6-2
W#2 DoublesSherri Kravec / Karen Trevino vs Maria Ellis / Ginger Butcher6-3, 1-6, 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 WOMEN 3.5 - TWILIGHT - NOCO 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 3.41 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.

3.85
Lorena Laffitte
published
3.60
Alexandra DeBever
published 3.5
3.36
Sherri Kravec
published
3.27
Gina Hastings
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.26
Karen Trevino
usually #2 Doubles 80%, also #1 Singles 20% · published 3.5
3.26
Paige Kanatous
published
3.24
Falguni Gill
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
Monica Bice
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.

Gina Hastings + Karen Trevino5160% games+6.0% vs expected
Falguni Gill + Karen Trevino1445% gamesnot enough data
Paige Kanatous + Karen Trevino404 matchesnot enough data
Gina Hastings + Falguni Gill123 matchesnot enough data
Falguni Gill + Monica Bice123 matchesnot enough data
Falguni Gill + Paige Kanatous123 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.

Lorena Laffitte
19W–7L career · no lines in 2021
<1%87%13%
3.85
3.5
Alexandra DeBever
31W–13L career · no lines in 2021
<1%21%79%
3.60
Sherri Kravec
28W–38L career · no lines in 2021
<1%86%14%
3.36
3.5
Gina Hastings
47W–31L career · 3 lines in 2021
2%94%4%
3.27
3.5
Karen Trevino
62W–50L career · 5 lines in 2021
2%94%3%
3.26
Paige Kanatous
37W–32L career · no lines in 2021
2%95%3%
3.26
3.5
Falguni Gill
77W–63L career · 3 lines in 2021
3%94%2%
3.24
Monica Bice
30W–13L career · no 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.