Teams

EMILY'S TEAM

2025 USTA ADULT LEAGUE 18 & OVER · 5.0 WOMEN- 18 & OVER

7 players · average NTRP 4.60 / NEVADA

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 →
Schedule3 played
2025-06-02vs JEN'S TEAMSplit 11
W#1 DoublesKatherine Olivier / Emily Adams vs Morgan Daley / Andrada Stanciu6-3, 6-2
L#2 DoublesThalia Vidal Roper / Madisen Cherry vs Jennifer Cox / Marne Darrall7-5, 3-6, 0-1
2025-04-19vs JEN'S TEAMWon 30
W#1 DoublesNicole Cardwell / Katherine Olivier vs Morgan Daley / Marne Darrall6-0, 6-1
W#1 SinglesMadisen Cherry vs Catherine Pfarrer6-2, 7-6
W#2 DoublesJoylyn Bronson / Desiree Luque Pradas vs Jennifer Cox / Jackie White6-4, 6-4
2025-04-18vs JEN'S TEAMWon 20
W#1 DoublesNicole Cardwell / Joylyn Bronson vs Stacey Heroy / Jackie White6-3, 7-6
W#2 DoublesDesiree Luque Pradas / Thalia Vidal Roper vs Morgan Daley / Jennifer Cox6-3, 2-6, 1-0
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 standings2 teams · 5.0 WOMEN- 18 & OVER
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1EMILY'S TEAM3081357
2JEN'S TEAM031817105

Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.

See the full flight, with every team’s record

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 4.25 estimated across 4 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.

Desiree Luque Pradas
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 5
4.50
Katherine Olivier
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
4.42
Madisen Cherry
usually #1 Singles 60%, also #2 Singles 20% · published 4.5
Emily Adams
published 4.5
4.20
Thalia Vidal Roper
usually #1 Singles 29%, also #2 Doubles 29% · published 4.5
3.88
Amanda Chen
published 4.5
Joylyn Bronson
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 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.

Madisen Cherry + Katherine Olivier12168% games+6.2% vs expected
Madisen Cherry + Thalia Vidal Roper134 matchesnot enough data
Katherine Olivier + Thalia Vidal Roper404 matchesnot enough data
Amanda Chen + Desiree Luque Pradas123 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.

5
Desiree Luque Pradas
5W–8L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Katherine Olivier
175W–76L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%50%50%
4.50
4.5
Madisen Cherry
77W–36L career · 10 lines in 2025
<1%72%28%
4.42
4.5
Emily Adams
147W–54L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
4.5
Thalia Vidal Roper
195W–72L career · 6 lines in 2025
6%93%1%
4.20
4.5
Amanda Chen
92W–76L career · no lines in 2025
83%17%<1%
3.88
Joylyn Bronson
15W–2L career · 2 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.