LEBTC GREEN
2021 USTA ADULT 18 & OVER - DEN · WOMEN 3.5 - 18 & OVER
9 players · average NTRP 3.71 / COLORADO
No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.
Schedule7 played
i
Flight standings32 teams · WOMEN 3.5 - 18 & OVER
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1KC YELLOW | 7 | 0 | 6 | 99 |
| 2VCC BLUE | 7 | 0 | 12 | 139 |
| 3DTC YELLOW | 6 | 0 | 12 | 123 |
| 4SV GREEN | 5 | 2 | 15 | 146 |
| 5PH PINK | 5 | 2 | 17 | 162 |
| 6WC TEAL | 5 | 2 | 17 | 156 |
| 7LEBTC SILVER | 5 | 2 | 20 | 178 |
| 8BRMST BRONZE | 5 | 2 | 22 | 175 |
| 9CCC BLUE | 4 | 3 | 15 | 147 |
| 10SKY PINK | 4 | 3 | 18 | 158 |
| 11RCC YELLOW | 4 | 3 | 18 | 156 |
| 12LEBTC NAVY | 4 | 3 | 19 | 152 |
| 13PRC BLACK | 4 | 3 | 20 | 171 |
| 14HW GOLD | 4 | 3 | 21 | 146 |
| 15HG GREEN | 4 | 3 | 23 | 186 |
| 16WP TEAL | 4 | 3 | 24 | 201 |
| 17EM BLUE | 3 | 3 | 19 | 142 |
| 18PTC GREEN | 3 | 4 | 21 | 167 |
| 19CCC SILVER | 3 | 4 | 21 | 175 |
| 20BCST GREEN | 3 | 4 | 23 | 191 |
| 21LTFC GREEN | 3 | 4 | 24 | 192 |
| 22GNO BLUE | 3 | 4 | 25 | 189 |
| 23HIW BRONZE | 3 | 4 | 29 | 198 |
| 24WC WHITE | 3 | 4 | 33 | 231 |
| 25GCC GOLD | 2 | 5 | 26 | 187 |
| 26CVTA NAVY | 2 | 5 | 28 | 205 |
| 27HV BLUE | 2 | 5 | 31 | 215 |
| 28HG NAVY | 2 | 5 | 32 | 218 |
| 29LEBTC GREEN | 2 | 5 | 34 | 216 |
| 30WP PINK | 1 | 5 | 22 | 158 |
| 31GR GREEN | 1 | 6 | 33 | 220 |
| 32CPV PINK | 0 | 7 | 41 | 252 |
Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.
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 3.39 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.
Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.
| Gwen Olsen + Susana Wanken | 4–1 | 72% games | +13.7% vs expected |
| Gwen Olsen + Maria Banta | 4–2 | 53% games | +4.9% vs expected |
| Jocelyn Bills + Elenita Marsan | 31–7 | 62% games | +4.7% vs expected |
| Christina Schwartz + Maria Banta | 3–3 | 52% games | −6.3% vs expected |
| Susana Wanken + Maria Banta | 4–4 | 53% games | not enough data |
| Jocelyn Bills + Susana Wanken | 5–1 | 59% games | not enough data |
| Tammy Gould + Susana Wanken | 2–2 | 4 matches | not enough data |
| Jocelyn Bills + Gwen Olsen | 2–2 | 4 matches | not enough data |
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.
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.