Teams

KC-CC RED

2023 CTA WOMEN'S 2.5 - DEN · WOMEN 2.5 - DEN

8 players · average NTRP 2.83 / 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 →
Schedule7 played
2023-07-19vs MC REDWon 10
W#1 DoublesCarla Minckley / Christine Jacquet vs Betty Evans / Karen Hyde7-5, 6-0
2023-07-12vs GR REDLost 01
L#1 SinglesCarla Minckley vs Libby Donohue7-6, 5-7, 1-0
2023-07-05vs PH GREENSplit 11
L#1 DoublesChristine Jacquet / Lauren Hamill vs Amy Stettner / Stacie Cowell3-6, 2-6
W#1 SinglesCarla Minckley vs Tracey Allan6-1, 6-3
2023-06-28vs RHCC REDWon 21
W#1 DoublesCarla Minckley / Nathalia Urbano vs Melissa Anderson / Julie Farquhar6-2, 6-4
L#1 SinglesSandra Copenhaver vs Cheryl Crawford6-3, 3-6, 0-1
W#2 DoublesChristine Jacquet / Annie Kim vs N/A6-0, 6-0
2023-06-26vs NJ ORANGELost 01
L#1 DoublesLara Howe / Christine Jacquet vs Katie Keighley / Kristen Lovely1-6, 3-6
2023-06-21vs BCST BLUEWon 10
W#1 DoublesCarla Minckley / Sandra Copenhaver vs Jody Monroe / Laura Blair6-3, 6-3
2023-06-14vs BM GREENWon 20
W#1 DoublesChristine Jacquet / Nathalia Urbano vs Lisa Matter / Andrea Linneman2-6, 6-4, 1-0
W#2 DoublesCarla Minckley / Annie Kim vs Elizabeth Riggs / Jeni Halingstad6-3, 6-2
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 2.5 - DEN 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 2.49 estimated across 6 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.

2.75
Annie Kim
published 3
2.64
Carla Minckley
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 33% · published 3
2.61
Sandra Copenhaver
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 50% · published 3
2.50
Nathalia Urbano
published 3
2.26
Christine Jacquet
usually #1 Doubles 80%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published 2.5
2.15
Andrea Shearer
published 2.5
Lara Howe
published
Lauren Hamill
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.

Carla Minckley + Christine Jacquet192350% games+7.0% vs expected
Carla Minckley + Sandra Copenhaver141051% games−0.2% vs expected
Christine Jacquet + Sandra Copenhaver4652% gamesnot enough data
Nathalia Urbano + Sandra Copenhaver123 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.

3
Annie Kim
21W–9L career · no lines in 2023
3%93%4%
2.75
3
Carla Minckley
83W–80L career · type A · 6 lines in 2023
16%83%<1%
2.64
3
Sandra Copenhaver
49W–44L career · type A · 2 lines in 2023
22%78%<1%
2.61
3
Nathalia Urbano
25W–66L career · type A · no lines in 2023
49%51%<1%
2.50
2.5
Christine Jacquet
73W–81L career · 5 lines in 2023
0%96%4%
2.26
2.5
Andrea Shearer
7W–13L career · no lines in 2023
0%99%1%
2.15
Lara Howe
4W–7L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Lauren Hamill
8W–7L career · no 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.