Teams

GAC RED

2024 CTA TWILIGHT - DEN · WOMEN 3.0 - TWILIGHT

9 players · average NTRP 2.88 / 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 →
Schedule6 played
2024-09-02vs CHCC GREENLost 01
L#2 DoublesSarah Mervak / Christine Clermont vs Bevin Wallace / Rebecca Williams4-6, 7-5, 0-1
2024-08-26vs SS-H TEALLost 01
L#2 DoublesLeah Putnam / Cori Murphy vs Jennifer Gruidel / Betsy Agnvall2-6, 0-6
2024-08-16vs HG YELLOWWon 10
W#1 DoublesLesley Baker / Molly Robbins vs Sarah Bernauer / Allison Rampley6-2, 6-2
2024-08-12vs HRCA-N GREENWon 10
W#2 DoublesLesley Baker / Sarah Mervak vs Pamela Abraham / Lydia Sfeir6-1, 6-3
2024-07-29Won 10
W#1 SinglesLesley Baker vs Mary Morris6-3, 6-2
2024-07-22vs EM REDLost 03
L#1 DoublesSarah Mervak / Sarah Younggren vs Lindsey MClintock / Janet Willson3-6, 1-6
L#1 SinglesLesley Baker vs Tammy Terhaar1-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesChristine Clermont / Leah Putnam vs Kathy Klein / Ellen Leher0-6, 7-6, 0-1
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 - TWILIGHT 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 2.69 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.

2.96
Molly Robbins
published
2.91
Lesley Baker
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3
2.73
Katie Donohue
published
2.60
Sarah Mervak
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.59
Sarah Younggren
published
2.36
Leah Putnam
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
Leslie Appiah
published
Rhonda Buder
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.

Lesley Baker + Molly Robbins6459% games+15.5% vs expected
Sarah Mervak + Lesley Baker5549% games+10.1% vs expected
Lesley Baker + Sarah Younggren2543% games−6.4% vs expected
Rhonda Buder + Sarah Mervak213 matchesnot enough data
Sarah Younggren + Katie Donohue213 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.

Molly Robbins
45W–37L career · no lines in 2024
<1%60%40%
2.96
3
Lesley Baker
87W–70L career · 4 lines in 2024
<1%74%25%
2.91
3
Christine Clermont
5W–4L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
Katie Donohue
22W–22L career · no lines in 2024
5%92%3%
2.73
3
Sarah Mervak
58W–115L career · 3 lines in 2024
24%75%<1%
2.60
Sarah Younggren
15W–30L career · no lines in 2024
26%74%<1%
2.59
2.5
Leah Putnam
48W–47L career · 2 lines in 2024
0%84%16%
2.36
Leslie Appiah
10W–5L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
Rhonda Buder
14W–10L career · no lines in 2024
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.