Teams

LT NAVY

2025 TRIO - NOCO · WOMEN 2.5 - TRIO - NOCO

6 players · average NTRP 2.50 / 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
2025-04-26vs HMTC TEALLost 01
L#1 DoublesMelanie Vandervolgen / Elizabeth Brown vs Amber Nichols / Karen Michell Anchondo Vazquez2-6, 1-6
2025-04-19vs FCCC YELLOWLost 12
L#1 DoublesElizabeth Brown / Jennifer Erickson vs Amanda Haygood / Libbie Hickman3-6, 3-6
W#1 SinglesLeah Lamkin vs Anna Silverman6-2, 1-6, 1-0
L#2 DoublesAlison Herman / Melanie Vandervolgen vs Megan Kushner / Katie Meadows4-6, 1-6
2025-04-05vs HMTC TEALLost 02
L#1 DoublesMelanie Vandervolgen / Jennifer Erickson vs Amber Nichols / Karen Michell Anchondo Vazquez2-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesTal Bloom / Sandra Hume vs Allison Miller / Molly Bond2-6, 3-6
2025-03-29vs FCCC YELLOWLost 12
L#1 DoublesTal Bloom / Elizabeth Brown vs Libbie Hickman / Anna Silverman6-4, 1-6, 0-1
W#1 SinglesJennifer Erickson vs Caroline Schild6-3, 6-1
L#2 DoublesAlison Herman / Melanie Vandervolgen vs Emily Davidson / Kristie Spencer4-6, 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 2.5 - TRIO - NOCO 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 2.21 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.

3.00
Jennifer Erickson
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #1 Singles 33% · published
2.26
Sandra Hume
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.06
Melanie Vandervolgen
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
2.02
Alison Herman
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
1.97
Leah Lamkin
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
1.96
Tal Bloom
usually #2 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.

Alison Herman + Melanie Vandervolgen1732% games−7.5% vs expected
Sandra Hume + Tal Bloom2634% games−8.6% vs expected
Tal Bloom + Leah Lamkin134 matchesnot enough data
Jennifer Erickson + Sandra Hume213 matchesnot enough data
Jennifer Erickson + Tal Bloom123 matchesnot enough data
Sandra Hume + Melanie Vandervolgen213 matchesnot enough data
Tal Bloom + Alison Herman123 matchesnot enough data
Tal Bloom + Melanie Vandervolgen123 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.

Jennifer Erickson
30W–25L career · 3 lines in 2025
0%<1%>99%
3.00
Sandra Hume
15W–19L career · 1 line in 2025
0%97%3%
2.26
Melanie Vandervolgen
8W–19L career · 4 lines in 2025
0%>99%<1%
2.06
2.5
Alison Herman
3W–17L career · 2 lines in 2025
0%>99%<1%
2.02
Leah Lamkin
5W–26L career · 1 line in 2025
0%>99%<1%
1.97
Tal Bloom
14W–34L career · 2 lines in 2025
0%>99%<1%
1.96

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.