Teams

FLYHS LEVKUS

2022 TRIO - SOCO · WOMEN 4.0 - TRIO - SOCO

8 players · average NTRP 4.00 / 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 →
Schedule4 played
2022-04-16vs LTFCS RYALSWon 20
W#1 DoublesKristi Creps / Jamie Roach vs Laura Schafer / Tatiana Merkoulova6-2, 2-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesKay Patterson / Chelsey Wright vs Rachel Rocks / Anne Ryals7-5, 7-5
2022-04-02vs CSRC VANEVERYWon 10
W#1 SinglesElayna Rathmann vs Candace McCollett6-3, 6-2
2022-04-02vs LTFCS KALTENBACHERSplit 11
L#1 DoublesAmy Saxby / Chelsey Wright vs Salome D'Silva / Cindy Yetter1-6, 4-6
W#2 DoublesKristi Creps / Jamie Roach vs Ann Grumann / Jennifer Madden6-2, 6-4
2022-03-26vs PBTC TUCKERLost 01
L#1 DoublesCatherine Mast / Elayna Rathmann vs Ursula Duran / Alyssa Parga5-7, 2-6
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 4.0 - TRIO - SOCO 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 3.67 estimated across 7 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.

3.95
Jamie Roach
published 4
3.95
Amy Saxby
published 4
3.79
Chelsey Wright
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.73
Kristi Creps
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.55
Elayna Rathmann
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 50% · published 4
3.52
Catherine Mast
published 4
3.17
Kay Patterson
published
Martina Levkus
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.

Catherine Mast + Amy Saxby3260% games+5.9% vs expected
Jamie Roach + Kristi Creps14556% games+2.8% vs expected
Chelsey Wright + Amy Saxby19859% games+2.1% vs expected
Kristi Creps + Chelsey Wright4452% games−2.7% vs expected
Catherine Mast + Elayna Rathmann2644% games−3.8% vs expected
Catherine Mast + Kay Patterson2543% games−4.3% vs expected
Elayna Rathmann + Kristi Creps4259% gamesnot enough data
Kay Patterson + Elayna Rathmann224 matchesnot enough data
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.

4
Jamie Roach
39W–14L career · no lines in 2022
<1%65%35%
3.95
4
Amy Saxby
57W–28L career · no lines in 2022
<1%65%35%
3.95
4
Chelsey Wright
54W–40L career · 2 lines in 2022
1%93%6%
3.79
4
Kristi Creps
59W–51L career · 2 lines in 2022
4%94%2%
3.73
4
Elayna Rathmann
75W–99L career · 2 lines in 2022
35%65%<1%
3.55
4
Catherine Mast
29W–45L career · no lines in 2022
43%57%<1%
3.52
Kay Patterson
10W–19L career · no lines in 2022
99%1%<1%
3.17
Martina Levkus
52W–18L career · no 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.