Teams

CGM-Peters

2020 Adult 18 & Over · 2.5 Women

5 players · average NTRP 3.2 · USTA/PACIFIC NW / NORTHERN OREGON

View scouting list →
Scouting

Roster averages 3.09 estimated across 5 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.

3.26
Janet Ha
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.19
Heidi Palena
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.11
THAO VAN
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.97
Cyndi Johnson
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 3
2.91
Catherine Huang
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 3
Results3 ties
2020-03-01Won 20
W#1 SinglesCatherine Huang vs Heather Dale6-1, 6-2
W#2 DoublesTHAO VAN / Janet Ha vs Melanie Doud / Shannon Inukai-Cuffee6-1, 6-3
2020-02-15Won 21
W#1 DoublesTrish Peters / Heidi Palena vs Amy Mai / Ina Inman6-2, 6-1
W#1 SinglesCatherine Huang vs Cyndi Peck6-2, 6-1
L#2 DoublesTHAO VAN / Dina Schilling vs KUSUM ASUDANI / Tammy Russum7-5, 3-6, 1-0
2020-01-05Lost 01
L#1 SinglesCyndi Johnson vs Suzanne Puttman6-4, 3-6, 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.
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.

3.5
Janet Ha
105W–56L career
1%99%0%
3.26
3.5
Heidi Palena
79W–62L career
4%96%0%
3.19
3
THAO VAN
62W–28L career
0%51%49%
3.11
3
Cyndi Johnson
39W–22L career
0%84%16%
2.97
3
Catherine Huang
94W–61L career
0%94%6%
2.91

Three percentages are the year-end projection — chance of moving down, staying, moving up — and the number on the right is our estimated dynamic rating, which USTA never publishes. 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.