Teams

GEPTA/Cartwright/Trilevel/4.0-3.0W

SouthernNewMexico · 2025 TRI-LEVEL LEAGUE

12 players · average NTRP 3.33 / GEPTA

View scouting list →
Schedule
Flight standings8 teams · 2025 TRI-LEVEL LEAGUE
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1GEPTA/Tri-Level/3.0-4.0W/Colbert5214715175
2GEPTA/Cartwright/Trilevel/4.0-3.0W5214719191
3GEPTA/Tri-level/3.0-4.0W/Castaneda5212922176
4GEPTA/Tri-Level/3.0-4.0W/Molina4314716146
5GEPTA/Tri-Level/3.0-4.0W/Gabalindo43111023185
6GEPTA/Tri-Level/3.0-4.0W/Woo4391231222
7GEPTA/Tri-level/3.0-4.0W/Huft1651634228
8GEPTA/Tri-Level/3.0-4.0W/Garcia0751636235

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 3.05 estimated across 3 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.

3.67
Danielle Harrison
usually #1 Doubles 64%, also #2 Doubles 29% · published 4
2.89
Allene Mirazo
usually #1 Doubles 39%, also #2 Doubles 36% · published 3
2.59
Diana Calhoun
usually #3 Doubles 47%, also #1 Doubles 47% · published 3
Genevieve Pendergras
usually #3 Doubles 58%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
Karla di Pascuale
usually #1 Singles 65%, also #2 Doubles 26% · published
Kathy Cartwright
usually #1 Doubles 38%, also #2 Doubles 31% · published
Keithley Stanley
usually #1 Singles 46%, also #1 Doubles 23% · published
Kelly Upson
usually #1 Doubles 91%, also #3 Doubles 9% · published
Megan Harris
usually #1 Doubles 63%, also #2 Doubles 21% · published
Monica Gonzalez
usually #2 Doubles 36%, also #3 Doubles 24% · published
Tina Gute
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
Wendy Bloss
usually #2 Doubles 56%, also #1 Doubles 22% · 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.

Tina Gute + Kelly Upson6648% games+4.9% vs expected
Danielle Harrison + Kathy Cartwright261557% games+1.5% vs expected
Tina Gute + Genevieve Pendergras11458% gamesnot enough data
Allene Mirazo + Keithley Stanley3447% gamesnot enough data
Kathy Cartwright + Wendy Bloss0633% gamesnot enough data
Monica Gonzalez + Diana Calhoun4249% gamesnot enough data
Diana Calhoun + Allene Mirazo3351% gamesnot enough data
Megan Harris + Kelly Upson5058% gamesnot 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
Danielle Harrison
48W–28L career · 14 lines in 2025
11%88%1%
3.67
3
Allene Mirazo
65W–70L career · 28 lines in 2025
<1%79%21%
2.89
3
Diana Calhoun
47W–57L career · 17 lines in 2025
26%74%<1%
2.59
Genevieve Pendergras
68W–38L career · 12 lines in 2025
not enough data
Karla di Pascuale
70W–41L career · 23 lines in 2025
not enough data
Kathy Cartwright
98W–60L career · 29 lines in 2025
not enough data
Keithley Stanley
49W–30L career · 13 lines in 2025
not enough data
Kelly Upson
45W–40L career · 11 lines in 2025
not enough data
Megan Harris
67W–10L career · 24 lines in 2025
not enough data
Monica Gonzalez
55W–41L career · 23 lines in 2025
not enough data
Tina Gute
74W–62L career · 12 lines in 2025
not enough data
Wendy Bloss
28W–38L career · 9 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.