Teams

PRC BLUE

2024 CTA WOMEN'S SUMMER DAYTIME - DEN · WOMEN 3.0 - SUMMER DAYTIME

10 players · average NTRP 3.00 / 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 →
Schedule5 played
2024-08-07vs CPV TEALWon 10
W#1 DoublesAmber Harris / Teresa Hahn vs Betsy Heggie / Jill Skinner6-4, 7-5
2024-07-24vs PRKR ORANGEWon 20
W#1 DoublesTeresa Hahn / Janice Nelson vs Shannon Fronapfel / Andrea Vickers6-3, 5-7, 1-0
W#2 DoublesKari Graham / Sharon Kisch vs Misty Candela / Vicky M Martin6-2, 6-2
2024-07-10vs VCC GREENWon 10
W#2 DoublesSharon Kisch / Kari Graham vs Kim Brogus / Kathy Etheridge6-4, 7-6
2024-07-03vs RRTC GREENWon 10
W#2 DoublesSharon Kisch / Kari Graham vs Dee Hutchison / Michelle McDonald6-2, 6-2
2024-06-26vs PCC PINKWon 10
W#2 DoublesTeresa Hahn / Janice Nelson vs Kelly Gavlak / Kelly Bromeier6-4, 4-6, 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 3.0 - SUMMER DAYTIME 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 2.82 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.

2.98
Amber Harris
published 3
2.97
Emily Carter
published
2.97
Sarah Hughes
published
2.94
Amy Walsh
published 3
2.81
Teresa Hahn
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.80
Sharon Kisch
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
Denise Coleman
published 3
2.69
Kari Graham
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.63
Lori Lee
published
2.60
Michele Shaw
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.

Kari Graham + Lori Lee8455% games+8.2% vs expected
Sarah Hughes + Amber Harris25663% games+4.6% vs expected
Sharon Kisch + Kari Graham261751% games+3.0% vs expected
Michele Shaw + Lori Lee213 matchesnot enough data
Emily Carter + Amber Harris123 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.

3
Amber Harris
41W–11L career · no lines in 2024
<1%55%45%
2.98
Emily Carter
30W–21L career · no lines in 2024
<1%58%42%
2.97
Sarah Hughes
28W–8L career · no lines in 2024
<1%59%41%
2.97
3
Amy Walsh
13W–5L career · no lines in 2024
<1%68%32%
2.94
3
Teresa Hahn
35W–27L career · 3 lines in 2024
1%90%8%
2.81
3
Sharon Kisch
179W–105L career · 3 lines in 2024
2%91%8%
2.80
3
Denise Coleman
2W–2L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
3
Kari Graham
95W–79L career · 3 lines in 2024
9%90%1%
2.69
Lori Lee
35W–25L career · no lines in 2024
17%82%<1%
2.63
Michele Shaw
11W–17L career · no lines in 2024
23%76%<1%
2.60

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.