Fall Orange Crush
2026 Fall Outdoor League-Weekday · 3.5W
13 players · average NTRP 3.50 / UTAH
No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.
Schedule1 played
i
Flight standings23 teams · 3.5W
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1SunPro Smashers | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2Ivory Ridge-Hardin/Elison | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 3Sports Mall-Wood | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 4Liberty Park-Lombardi/Webster | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 5Ogden-Andersen | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 6Sports Mall-Knowlton/Lake | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 7Liberty Park-Creamer/Wecker | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 8Heber Valley Hot Shots | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 9Ladies In Black | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 10SLTHC Ball Babes | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 11Red Ledges-Christensen/Thomson | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 12Deer Creek Dolls | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 13Wasatch Hills-For The Glory | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 14ACE-Harman | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 15PC MARC-Alexander/Levin | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 16Fall Orange Crush | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 17Cottonwood Club-Summerhays/Winson | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 18Sunpro-For The Love | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 19SunPro-Thorpe/Wudel | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 20Park City MARC Krueger/Siano | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 21SL Tennis-Sweet/Smathers | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 22SMASH SISTERS | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 23Sports Mall-Green/Wilcox | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 3.08 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.
Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.
| Ann Trentman + Lisa Ewing | 5–2 | 57% games | +8.5% vs expected |
| Mary Sorensen + Linda Lasater | 8–1 | 65% games | +7.7% vs expected |
| Jennifer Tooley + Hannah Lee | 5–2 | 58% games | +4.9% vs expected |
| Ann Trentman + Terri Brunner | 9–8 | 52% games | +4.0% vs expected |
| Shelly Kemp + Terri Brunner | 16–17 | 48% games | +1.9% vs expected |
| Ann Trentman + Allison Leishman | 4–4 | 43% games | +1.9% vs expected |
| Ann Trentman + Hannah Lee | 3–2 | 53% games | +1.8% vs expected |
| Ann Trentman + Jennifer Tooley | 3–2 | 55% games | +1.0% vs expected |
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.