Teams

MLF PURPLE

2022 TRIO - NOCO · WOMEN 3.0 - TRIO - NOCO

7 players · average NTRP 3.12 / 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
2022-04-16vs FCCC GREENWon 30
W#1 DoublesAudrie Diel / Wendy Sprague vs Crystal Osthoff / Kathleen Tremblay6-4, 1-6, 1-0
W#1 SinglesSarah Hay-Arthur vs Whitney Irvin6-3, 2-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesShannon Bigner / Jamie Heckman vs Nicole Holmes / Shannon Holt2-6, 7-6, 1-0
2022-04-09vs HMTCLost 12
W#1 DoublesEmily Eiten / Sarah Hay-Arthur vs Tracy Sanders / Susan Seiler6-3, 6-4
L#1 SinglesShannon Bigner vs Michelle Fang6-3, 2-6, 0-1
L#2 DoublesJamie Heckman / Wendy Sprague vs Marcee Gustafson / Rachel von Seggern2-6, 2-6
2022-03-26vs TAGWon 20
W#1 DoublesEmily Eiten / Sarah Hay-Arthur vs Thora Pabst / Amy Herold6-3, 6-4
W#2 DoublesShannon Bigner / Jennifer Blackler vs Deirdre White / Melissa Dalton6-3, 6-4
2022-03-19vs FCCC REDWon 21
W#1 DoublesEmily Eiten / Audrie Diel vs Shanti Green / Teresa Nugent6-0, 6-2
L#1 SinglesSarah Hay-Arthur vs Hilary McCart1-6, 5-7
W#2 DoublesShannon Bigner / Jamie Heckman vs Christina Baker / Nancy Hartley6-1, 6-1
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 3.0 - 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 2.86 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.

3.40
Emily Eiten
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
2.94
Audrie Diel
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
Shannon Bigner
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #1 Singles 25% · published 3
2.69
Jamie Heckman
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.41
Wendy Sprague
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
Jennifer Blackler
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Sarah Hay-Arthur
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 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.

Wendy Sprague + Audrie Diel6158% games+6.7% vs expected
Jamie Heckman + Shannon Bigner6552% games+3.6% vs expected
Wendy Sprague + Jamie Heckman2344% games−12.9% vs expected
Audrie Diel + Jamie Heckman224 matchesnot enough data
Emily Eiten + Audrie Diel213 matchesnot enough data
Audrie Diel + Shannon Bigner123 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.

3.5
Emily Eiten
38W–13L career · 3 lines in 2022
<1%77%23%
3.40
3
Audrie Diel
25W–21L career · 2 lines in 2022
<1%68%32%
2.94
3
Shannon Bigner
41W–62L career · type A · 4 lines in 2022
not enough data
3
Jamie Heckman
24W–38L career · 3 lines in 2022
7%92%1%
2.69
Wendy Sprague
25W–53L career · 2 lines in 2022
75%25%<1%
2.41
Jennifer Blackler
1W–5L career · 1 line in 2022
not enough data
Sarah Hay-Arthur
5W–12L career · 4 lines in 2022
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.