Teams

Sports Mall-Kasteler/Affleck

2021 USTA Adult 40 & Over · 4.0W AM

24 players · average NTRP 4.03 / 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 →
Schedule2 played
2021-07-01vs Golds Gym-Blackhurst/AllenWon 10
W#3 DoublesSherilyn Rawlings / Jill Ford vs Michelle McGill / Halli Craft6-1, 6-3
2021-06-17Won 10
W#3 DoublesSherilyn Rawlings / Brenda Fowler vs Stacey Schmerse / Nicole Garff6-2, 6-3
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 4.0W AM 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 3.72 estimated across 18 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.

4.43
Kimberly Simpson
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
Amy Hansen
usually #1 Doubles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4.5
4.14
Christine Fotheringham
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published 4.5
3.99
Julie Cooley
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
3.92
Vicky Arne
usually #3 Doubles 70%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published 4
3.88
Kristi Roggensack
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 29% · published 4
3.85
Tiffany Kasteler
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #3 Doubles 17% · published
3.78
Susan Koelliker
usually #2 Doubles 33%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.75
JaNae Smith
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 30% · published 4
Anji DowDell
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4
Carole Sharp
usually #3 Doubles 57%, also #2 Doubles 43% · published 4
Cristie Briggs
usually #1 Singles 36%, also #3 Doubles 27% · published 4
Heather Paddock
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.72
Tiffany Olson
usually #2 Doubles 57%, also #1 Doubles 29% · published
3.69
Dorene Sambado
usually #1 Singles 92%, also #3 Doubles 8% · published 4
3.69
Sherilyn Rawlings
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.65
Jill Ford
usually #3 Doubles 60%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published
3.59
Annalyn Adams
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.54
Brenda Fowler
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.40
Natalie Watts
published
3.40
Amanda Lewis
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.39
Lindie Hoggan
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
3.14
Kristel Affleck
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
Kim Warren
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · 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.

Tiffany Kasteler + Annalyn Adams5069% games+17.9% vs expected
Sherilyn Rawlings + Jill Ford6159% games+13.5% vs expected
Susan Koelliker + Christine Fotheringham5063% games+10.8% vs expected
Tiffany Olson + Brenda Fowler8356% games+10.2% vs expected
Tiffany Kasteler + Kristel Affleck8461% games+7.8% vs expected
Amy Hansen + Julie Cooley8557% games+7.3% vs expected
Heather Paddock + JaNae Smith5558% games+7.2% vs expected
Julie Cooley + Christine Fotheringham25760% games+5.5% 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.

Kimberly Simpson
144W–57L career · 8 lines in 2021
<1%70%30%
4.43
4.5
Amy Hansen
43W–44L career · 3 lines in 2021
not enough data
4.5
Christine Fotheringham
213W–62L career · 10 lines in 2021
14%86%<1%
4.14
Julie Cooley
63W–26L career · 2 lines in 2021
53%47%<1%
3.99
4
Vicky Arne
254W–151L career · 10 lines in 2021
<1%74%26%
3.92
4
Kristi Roggensack
126W–91L career · 14 lines in 2021
<1%81%19%
3.88
Tiffany Kasteler
166W–104L career · 6 lines in 2021
<1%87%12%
3.85
4
Susan Koelliker
133W–81L career · 6 lines in 2021
1%94%5%
3.78
4
JaNae Smith
221W–188L career · 10 lines in 2021
3%95%3%
3.75
4
Anji DowDell
95W–74L career · 3 lines in 2021
not enough data
4
Carole Sharp
95W–47L career · 7 lines in 2021
not enough data
4
Cristie Briggs
75W–60L career · 11 lines in 2021
not enough data
4
Heather Paddock
121W–95L career · 8 lines in 2021
not enough data
Tiffany Olson
115W–51L career · 7 lines in 2021
4%94%2%
3.72
4
Dorene Sambado
102W–113L career · 12 lines in 2021
7%92%1%
3.69
4
Sherilyn Rawlings
136W–64L career · 2 lines in 2021
7%92%1%
3.69
Jill Ford
86W–60L career · 5 lines in 2021
13%87%<1%
3.65
4
Annalyn Adams
122W–97L career · 6 lines in 2021
24%76%<1%
3.59
4
Brenda Fowler
87W–76L career · 4 lines in 2021
37%63%<1%
3.54
Natalie Watts
41W–58L career · no lines in 2021
78%22%<1%
3.40
4
Amanda Lewis
49W–31L career · 2 lines in 2021
79%21%<1%
3.40
Lindie Hoggan
58W–74L career · 4 lines in 2021
81%19%<1%
3.39
3.5
Kristel Affleck
123W–116L career · 6 lines in 2021
14%86%<1%
3.14
Kim Warren
51W–63L career · 2 lines in 2021
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.