Teams

CSU WHITE

2024 CTA TWILIGHT - NOCO · WOMEN 4.0 - TWILIGHT - NOCO

6 players · average NTRP 3.92 / 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
2024-09-04vs CSU GOLDSplit 11
L#1 DoublesEdie LaFonte / Peggy Johnson vs Rachel Robertson / Rachel Fernandez-Grant1-6, 0-6
W#2 DoublesCynthia McGrorey / Anja Mau vs Mel Fernandez / Erin Pasold6-4, 4-6, 1-0
2024-08-28Lost 01
L#1 DoublesCynthia McGrorey / Anja Mau vs Laurie Anderson / Vicki Davis3-6, 6-7
2024-08-23vs LVTA SILVERLost 02
L#1 DoublesPeggy Johnson / Priscilla Dressen vs Shelli Friesen / Linda Miller3-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesCarolyn Guernsey / Edie LaFonte vs Trish Lebsack / Nancy McIlvenna6-4, 3-6, 0-1
2024-08-07vs CSU GREENLost 02
L#1 DoublesPriscilla Dressen / Peggy Johnson vs Camy Davis / Sarah Soffe5-7, 6-7
L#2 DoublesCarolyn Guernsey / Edie LaFonte vs Becky Rosetti-Solley / Carrie Galyardt0-6, 2-6
2024-07-31vs CSU GOLDWon 20
W#1 DoublesPriscilla Dressen / Peggy Johnson vs Mel Fernandez / Rachel Robertson6-4, 6-4
W#2 DoublesAnja Mau / Edie LaFonte vs N/A6-0, 6-0
2024-07-24vs HMTC REDLost 02
L#1 DoublesPriscilla Dressen / Peggy Johnson vs Helen Crews / Mary Wilson7-5, 2-6, 0-1
L#2 DoublesEdie LaFonte / Carolyn Guernsey vs Vicki Davis / Cheri Gipson3-6, 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 WOMEN 4.0 - TWILIGHT - 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 3.52 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.

3.72
Peggy Johnson
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.72
Dee Woodcock
published 4
3.50
Priscilla Dressen
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.50
Cynthia McGrorey
published 4
3.47
Anja Mau
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.24
Edie LaFonte
usually #2 Doubles 80%, also #1 Doubles 20% · published 3.5
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.

Peggy Johnson + Priscilla Dressen112647% games−4.5% vs expected
Anja Mau + Edie LaFonte4349% gamesnot enough data
Anja Mau + Cynthia McGrorey033 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.

4
Peggy Johnson
24W–47L career · 5 lines in 2024
5%92%2%
3.72
4
Dee Woodcock
7W–8L career · no lines in 2024
6%92%2%
3.72
4
Priscilla Dressen
92W–113L career · 4 lines in 2024
50%50%<1%
3.50
4
Cynthia McGrorey
5W–14L career · no lines in 2024
51%49%<1%
3.50
4
Anja Mau
55W–100L career · 3 lines in 2024
60%40%<1%
3.47
3.5
Edie LaFonte
34W–57L career · 5 lines in 2024
4%93%3%
3.24

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.