Teams

Sports Mall-Weaver/Lyon

2023 USTA Adult 40 & Over · 3.0W AM

19 players · average NTRP 3.21 / UTAH

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
2023-08-09Lost 12
L#1 DoublesEmily Peterson / Kelly Wilcox vs Jennifer Tooley / Diane Poole1-6, 2-6
W#1 SinglesDawn Farrell vs Sherrie Hatch6-3, 6-3
L#3 DoublesKami Galbraith / Chelsea Wood vs Magdalena Kovacsovics / Lindy Parks1-6, 5-7
2023-08-02vs Sunpro-Donaldson/CardallWon 20
W#2 DoublesEmily Peterson / Emily Matheson vs Kari Bergeson / Cari Cardall7-5, 6-4
W#3 DoublesHolli Allred / Kassie Butt vs Liz Donaldson / MARILYN PETERSEN6-1, 6-1
2023-07-19vs Cottonwood Club-Ricker/FarnsworthSplit 11
W#2 DoublesDawn Farrell / Angela Jensen vs LaRae Dean / Mary Jayne Child6-4, 6-7, 1-0
L#3 DoublesLisa Packer / Holli Allred vs Hege Farnsworth / Nancy Miller4-6, 5-7
2023-06-28vs Liberty Park Tennis-SwalbergWon 20
W#1 DoublesEmily Peterson / Kelly Wilcox vs Linda Larsen / Natasha Plyer5-7, 6-2, 1-0
W#3 DoublesDawn Farrell / Amy Herold vs Paulette Bierwolf / Lisa Bradshaw6-1, 6-1
2023-06-21vs Park City MARC-Byrne/KruegerSplit 11
W#1 DoublesEmily Peterson / Kelly Wilcox vs Kelly Krueger / Marti Skjervem6-2, 6-2
L#3 DoublesDawn Farrell / Kami Galbraith vs Lauren Karr / Melanie Schlachter6-0, 3-6, 0-1
2023-06-14vs Red Ledges-Overton/WoodLost 02
L#1 DoublesMuranda Barker / Emily Peterson vs Megan Overton / Carly Johnston6-2, 1-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesKristen Bradley / Kassie Butt vs Melissa Smith / Clarissa McLeod4-6, 6-1, 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 standings2 teams · 3.0W AM
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Sports Mall-Weaver/Lyon63201635287
2Cottonwood Club-Ricker/Farnsworth2792757395

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 3.01 estimated across 13 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.

3.43
Kassie Butt
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.42
Kelly Wilcox
usually #1 Doubles 54%, also #1 Singles 23% · published
3.27
Lora Lyon
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
3.25
Brenda Green
usually #1 Doubles 33%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.23
Lisa Beames
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 21% · published 3.5
3.17
Camille Weaver
usually #2 Doubles 38%, also #3 Doubles 38% · published 3.5
3.13
Dawn Farrell
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
2.99
Rebecca England
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
2.88
Chelsea Wood
usually #1 Singles 43%, also #2 Doubles 29% · published 3
2.79
Naomi Stroud-Peterson
usually #2 Doubles 40%, also #3 Doubles 40% · published 3
Amy Herold
published 3
Emily Matheson
usually #3 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3
Emily Peterson
usually #1 Doubles 80%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published 3
2.63
Angela Jensen
usually #2 Doubles 56%, also #1 Doubles 22% · published 3
2.54
Holli Allred
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.38
Kami Galbraith
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Kristen Bradley
published
Lisa Packer
published
Muranda Barker
usually #1 Doubles 38%, also #1 Singles 38% · 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.

Naomi Stroud-Peterson + Muranda Barker4250% games+10.8% vs expected
Kelly Wilcox + Brenda Green9164% games+10.8% vs expected
Camille Weaver + Brenda Green10158% games+10.6% vs expected
Kelly Wilcox + Lora Lyon6257% games+6.4% vs expected
Emily Peterson + Lora Lyon7554% games+5.6% vs expected
Brenda Green + Lora Lyon141052% games+5.5% vs expected
Camille Weaver + Lisa Beames17757% games+5.4% vs expected
Emily Peterson + Lisa Packer1541% games+5.3% 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
Kassie Butt
72W–51L career · 2 lines in 2023
<1%70%30%
3.43
Kelly Wilcox
140W–69L career · 13 lines in 2023
<1%72%28%
3.42
Lora Lyon
102W–83L career · 8 lines in 2023
2%94%4%
3.27
3.5
Brenda Green
130W–69L career · 9 lines in 2023
3%95%3%
3.25
3.5
Lisa Beames
158W–139L career · 14 lines in 2023
4%94%2%
3.23
3.5
Camille Weaver
141W–91L career · 8 lines in 2023
9%90%1%
3.17
3.5
Dawn Farrell
127W–112L career · 4 lines in 2023
15%85%<1%
3.13
Rebecca England
110W–96L career · 8 lines in 2023
54%46%<1%
2.99
3
Chelsea Wood
63W–113L career · 7 lines in 2023
<1%83%17%
2.88
3
Naomi Stroud-Peterson
139W–157L career · 5 lines in 2023
1%93%6%
2.79
3
Amy Herold
10W–26L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
3
Emily Matheson
55W–67L career · 4 lines in 2023
not enough data
3
Emily Peterson
58W–77L career · 5 lines in 2023
not enough data
3
Angela Jensen
98W–97L career · 9 lines in 2023
15%85%<1%
2.63
3
Holli Allred
49W–70L career · 2 lines in 2023
39%61%<1%
2.54
Kami Galbraith
36W–60L career · 2 lines in 2023
82%18%<1%
2.38
Kristen Bradley
15W–8L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Lisa Packer
38W–49L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Muranda Barker
36W–21L career · 8 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.