Teams

LTFC RED

2022 USTA ADULT 40 & OVER - DEN · WOMEN 3.5 - 40 & OVER

10 players · average NTRP 3.42 / 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 →
Schedule7 played
2022-07-21vs HG REDWon 21
W#1 DoublesShelley Chism / Theresa Gilpatrick vs Kristen Dimig / Sarah Bernauer6-3, 6-4
L#2 DoublesElizabeth Zenk / Linda Murray vs Kristin Morris / Whitney Cain2-6, 1-6
W#3 DoublesRebecca Franciscus / Lindsay Piepgras vs Katy Adler / Mary Dewar6-3, 6-3
2022-07-14vs HV PURPLEWon 31
W#1 DoublesShelley Chism / Theresa Gilpatrick vs Mim Lyles / Leisha Andersen6-4, 2-6, 1-0
L#1 SinglesElizabeth Zenk vs Kathy Shepherd4-6, 2-6
W#2 DoublesLinda Murray / Alison Cejka vs Kris LaValley / Deidre Torrey6-4, 7-5
W#3 DoublesRebecca Franciscus / Lindsay Piepgras vs Stephanie Wilcox / Holly Gant6-1, 6-1
2022-07-07vs CACI BLUELost 12
L#1 DoublesShelley Chism / Darlene Jensen-Walker vs Angela D'Alessandro / Allison Stewart5-7, 3-6
L#2 DoublesElizabeth Zenk / Theresa Gilpatrick vs Crystal Hostelley / Sherri Hartman4-6, 2-6
W#3 DoublesAlison Cejka / Margaret Fuller vs Carrie Bryan / Heidi Kelly6-4, 2-6, 1-0
2022-06-30vs HRCA AQUALost 04
L#1 DoublesShelley Chism / Darlene Jensen-Walker vs Michelle Millet / Tara Simmons2-6, 2-6
L#1 SinglesJoane Keran vs Dee Zimmerman6-7, 3-6
L#2 DoublesTheresa Gilpatrick / Elizabeth Zenk vs Amy Keller / Kelly Bryson3-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesAlison Cejka / Linda Murray vs Helen Lazzell / Ruby Fast3-6, 2-6
2022-06-23vs HFII REDWon 40
W#1 DoublesJoane Keran / Elizabeth Zenk vs Melissa Wern / Lauren Landen2-6, 6-4, 1-0
W#1 SinglesDarlene Jensen-Walker vs Sissy Jasper6-2, 6-0
W#2 DoublesAlison Cejka / Linda Murray vs Kara Carey / Kim MacKendrick6-1, 6-2
W#3 DoublesMargaret Fuller / Theresa Gilpatrick vs Bonnie Mccoumb / Linda Staples6-1, 6-0
2022-06-16vs SSLT BLUEWon 40
W#1 DoublesShelley Chism / Darlene Jensen-Walker vs Kristie Gill / Suzanne Kwilman6-3, 7-5
W#1 SinglesJoane Keran vs Kerinsa Mullins6-2, 6-4
W#2 DoublesElizabeth Zenk / Theresa Gilpatrick vs Roberta Seifert / Ellen Shoemaker6-2, 2-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesAlison Cejka / Margaret Fuller vs Sherri Rosselot / Stacey Gilmore6-1, 6-4
2022-06-09vs HW BLUESplit 22
L#1 DoublesTheresa Gilpatrick / Darlene Jensen-Walker vs Meredith van Wyk / Jill Smith1-6, 2-6
W#1 SinglesRebecca Franciscus vs N/A6-0, 6-0
W#2 DoublesElizabeth Zenk / Joane Keran vs Stacy Masur / Melanie Adams6-1, 5-7, 1-0
L#3 DoublesLinda Murray / Margaret Fuller vs Christy Serenyi / Kim Williams6-4, 4-6, 0-1
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 - 40 & OVER 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 3.18 estimated across 6 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.

3.36
Rebecca Franciscus
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #1 Singles 33% · published 3.5
3.30
Lindsay Piepgras
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.28
Linda Murray
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #3 Doubles 40% · published 3.5
3.20
Elizabeth Zenk
usually #2 Doubles 71%, also #1 Doubles 14% · published 3.5
3.16
Alison Cejka
usually #3 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published 3.5
2.78
Margaret Fuller
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Darlene Jensen-Walker
usually #1 Doubles 80%, also #1 Singles 20% · published 3
Joane Keran
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published
Shelley Chism
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Theresa Gilpatrick
usually #2 Doubles 43%, also #1 Doubles 43% · 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.

Linda Murray + Shelley Chism7358% games+6.3% vs expected
Elizabeth Zenk + Joane Keran12856% games+4.5% vs expected
Rebecca Franciscus + Lindsay Piepgras421757% games+3.3% vs expected
Alison Cejka + Margaret Fuller5254% games+3.2% vs expected
Shelley Chism + Darlene Jensen-Walker8451% games+0.6% vs expected
Shelley Chism + Theresa Gilpatrick131548% games+0.1% vs expected
Shelley Chism + Elizabeth Zenk4353% games−3.4% vs expected
Linda Murray + Margaret Fuller2548% games−3.5% 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.

3.5
Rebecca Franciscus
90W–57L career · 3 lines in 2022
<1%86%14%
3.36
3.5
Lindsay Piepgras
63W–28L career · 2 lines in 2022
1%93%6%
3.30
3.5
Linda Murray
39W–28L career · 5 lines in 2022
2%94%5%
3.28
3.5
Elizabeth Zenk
174W–106L career · 7 lines in 2022
6%93%1%
3.20
3.5
Alison Cejka
70W–99L career · 5 lines in 2022
10%89%<1%
3.16
Margaret Fuller
25W–36L career · 4 lines in 2022
1%94%5%
2.78
3
Darlene Jensen-Walker
18W–36L career · 5 lines in 2022
not enough data
Joane Keran
27W–24L career · 4 lines in 2022
not enough data
Shelley Chism
43W–36L career · 5 lines in 2022
not enough data
Theresa Gilpatrick
24W–37L career · 7 lines in 2022
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.