Teams

Cottonwood Club-Summerhays/Winson

2025 USTA Adult 18 & Over · 3.5W AM

20 players · average NTRP 3.31 / 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 →
Schedule5 played
2025-05-13vs Red Ledges-Christensen/ThomsonLost 02
L#1 DoublesLori Carter / Kerry Davis vs Megan Archibald / Meghan Sobolewski3-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesKrissie Summerhays / Katie Winson vs Marian Christensen / Shana Wood7-5, 2-6, 0-1
2025-05-06Lost 02
L#1 DoublesKatie Winson / Tara Wood vs Michelle Edwards / Nicole Reese6-4, 0-6, 0-1
L#2 SinglesKerry Davis vs Kelly Wilcox0-6, 2-6
2025-05-02Won 10
W#1 SinglesKerry Davis vs Chelsea Wood6-0, 6-0
2025-04-22vs SunPro-Thorpe/ChamberlainLost 01
L#2 DoublesDawn Farrell / Kerry Davis vs Cori Duke / Corinne Wudel7-6, 4-6, 1-0
2025-04-15vs Sunpro-Barber/WestoverLost 01
L#2 DoublesKatie Winson / Kerry Davis vs Carolyn Barber / Seidi Bennett4-6, 0-6
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 3.5W 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 3.11 estimated across 17 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.

3.41
Taylor Haverkost
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published 3.5
3.40
Lori Carter
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.37
Tara Wood
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
3.33
Haley H Moreno
usually #1 Doubles 40%, also #1 Singles 40% · published 3.5
3.25
Michelle Lynn Maxfield
usually #1 Doubles 71%, also #2 Doubles 14% · published 3.5
3.23
Lisa Beames
usually #3 Doubles 40%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published 3.5
3.17
Camille Weaver
usually #2 Doubles 33%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.15
Kerry Davis
usually #2 Doubles 40%, also #1 Singles 20% · published
3.13
Dawn Farrell
usually #2 Doubles 63%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.12
Lindy Parks
usually #1 Doubles 46%, also #2 Doubles 27% · published 3.5
3.06
Alison Pearce
usually #2 Doubles 39%, also #3 Doubles 23% · published 3.5
3.03
Cherylin Winkel
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
2.96
Jennifer Sweat
usually #3 Doubles 29%, also #2 Singles 21% · published
2.93
Katie Winson
usually #2 Doubles 33%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
2.79
Naomi Stroud-Peterson
usually #3 Doubles 39%, also #2 Singles 22% · published 3
2.78
Karen Rozsa
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.77
Krissie Summerhays
usually #3 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published 3
Carrie Larsen
published 3
Jane Chandramouli
usually #1 Doubles 38%, also #2 Singles 25% · published 3
Karlene Johnston
usually #3 Doubles 80%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published 3
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.

Camille Weaver + Tara Wood4156% games+9.9% vs expected
Kerry Davis + Lori Carter5260% games+9.2% vs expected
Katie Winson + Taylor Haverkost4170% games+8.5% vs expected
Jennifer Sweat + Naomi Stroud-Peterson6652% games+6.8% vs expected
Lori Carter + Haley H Moreno11162% games+6.2% vs expected
Alison Pearce + Krissie Summerhays4346% games+5.5% vs expected
Camille Weaver + Karlene Johnston6261% games+5.4% vs expected
Camille Weaver + Lisa Beames17757% games+5.4% 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.

3.5
Taylor Haverkost
138W–62L career · 10 lines in 2025
<1%75%24%
3.41
Lori Carter
107W–54L career · 4 lines in 2025
<1%77%23%
3.40
Tara Wood
43W–49L career · 4 lines in 2025
84%16%<1%
3.37
3.5
Haley H Moreno
82W–46L career · 10 lines in 2025
1%90%9%
3.33
3.5
Michelle Lynn Maxfield
84W–58L career · 7 lines in 2025
2%95%3%
3.25
3.5
Lisa Beames
158W–139L career · 5 lines in 2025
4%94%2%
3.23
3.5
Camille Weaver
141W–91L career · 3 lines in 2025
9%90%1%
3.17
Kerry Davis
36W–30L career · 5 lines in 2025
13%87%<1%
3.15
3.5
Dawn Farrell
127W–112L career · 8 lines in 2025
15%85%<1%
3.13
3.5
Lindy Parks
121W–91L career · 11 lines in 2025
17%83%<1%
3.12
3.5
Alison Pearce
171W–202L career · 12 lines in 2025
32%67%<1%
3.06
3.5
Cherylin Winkel
112W–142L career · 4 lines in 2025
42%58%<1%
3.03
Jennifer Sweat
135W–130L career · 13 lines in 2025
<1%63%37%
2.96
3.5
Katie Winson
128W–124L career · 3 lines in 2025
70%30%<1%
2.93
3
Naomi Stroud-Peterson
139W–157L career · 18 lines in 2025
1%93%6%
2.79
3
Karen Rozsa
187W–205L career · 6 lines in 2025
2%94%4%
2.78
3
Krissie Summerhays
110W–123L career · 5 lines in 2025
2%94%4%
2.77
3
Carrie Larsen
38W–39L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
3
Jane Chandramouli
60W–125L career · 8 lines in 2025
not enough data
3
Karlene Johnston
131W–109L career · 5 lines in 2025
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.