Teams

Liberty Park-Warren/Hurd

2025 USTA Adult 40 & Over · 4.0W PM

19 players · average NTRP 3.83 / UTAH

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 →
Schedule5 played
2025-07-23vs Liberty Park-RockettesSplit 11
W#1 SinglesEmilee Hurley vs Inga Nelson6-1, 6-3
L#2 DoublesLisa Ewing / Sara Ray vs Katie Swensen / Natalie Clawson6-7, 6-0, 0-1
2025-07-15vs Cottonwood Club-WarrenWon 20
W#1 SinglesEmilee Hurley vs Dorene Sambado6-4, 6-2
W#3 DoublesChandi Hurd / Daisy Carlson vs Kim Warren / Lisa Hakes6-3, 6-2
2025-07-08Lost 02
L#1 DoublesKristi Warren / Daisy Carlson vs Ashley MESSENGER / Sandee Kozel3-6, 5-7
L#1 SinglesEmilee Hurley vs Meghan Tuohig6-4, 3-6, 0-1
2025-07-01Won 20
W#1 SinglesEmilee Hurley vs Amber Thompson7-5, 6-2
W#2 DoublesKim Cronin / Daisy Carlson vs Emily Waltman / Mithona Nielsen6-3, 2-6, 1-0
2025-06-11vs Cottonwood Club-WarrenSplit 11
W#1 SinglesEmilee Hurley vs Dorene Sambado6-2, 6-3
L#3 DoublesDebi Johnson / Sara Ray vs Maria Brockbank / Janelle Pulley3-6, 4-6
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 standings5 teams · 4.0W PM
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Liberty Park-Warren/Hurd71201230271
2Park City MARC-Summer Girls62211126233
3Sports Mall- Thompson44171532267
4Liberty Park-Rockettes1782452356
5Antczak Park-Day0852756359

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 3.56 estimated across 17 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.

3.83
Daisy Carlson
usually #2 Doubles 33%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.81
Kristi Warren
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #1 Singles 40% · published
3.76
Angela Bleak
usually #3 Doubles 73%, also #2 Doubles 27% · published 4
3.74
Kim Cronin
usually #1 Doubles 71%, also #2 Doubles 29% · published 4
3.69
Chandi Hurd
usually #1 Singles 73%, also #3 Doubles 18% · published 4
3.69
Emilee Hurley
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 4
3.68
Misty Morrow
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 4
3.65
Teri Bishop
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 4
3.60
Sarah Love
usually #1 Doubles 63%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
3.58
Debi Johnson
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 4
3.44
Jacki Joseph
usually #2 Doubles 46%, also #3 Doubles 27% · published 3.5
3.40
Jeanette Shepard
usually #3 Doubles 31%, also #1 Doubles 31% · published 3.5
3.38
Sara Ray
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
3.37
Michelle Maxfield
usually #2 Doubles 46%, also #3 Doubles 31% · published
3.32
Debra Knowlton
usually #1 Doubles 40%, also #3 Doubles 30% · published 3.5
3.27
Lisa Ewing
usually #1 Doubles 55%, also #2 Doubles 27% · published
3.23
Jennie Stacey
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
Kelle Jones
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
Sara Green
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.

Debi Johnson + Jacki Joseph15067% games+14.4% vs expected
Jennie Stacey + Sara Ray3260% games+7.9% vs expected
Jeanette Shepard + Jacki Joseph2651% games+7.3% vs expected
Kim Cronin + Michelle Maxfield281656% games+5.8% vs expected
Michelle Maxfield + Chandi Hurd28859% games+5.5% vs expected
Sarah Love + Michelle Maxfield5453% games+4.1% vs expected
Debi Johnson + Teri Bishop6156% games+4.1% vs expected
Debi Johnson + Kim Cronin13363% games+3.8% vs expected
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
Daisy Carlson
185W–93L career · 3 lines in 2025
1%88%11%
3.83
Kristi Warren
242W–134L career · 5 lines in 2025
1%90%9%
3.81
4
Angela Bleak
214W–163L career · 11 lines in 2025
3%93%4%
3.76
4
Kim Cronin
380W–237L career · 14 lines in 2025
5%92%3%
3.74
4
Chandi Hurd
180W–143L career · 11 lines in 2025
8%90%1%
3.69
4
Emilee Hurley
95W–51L career · 5 lines in 2025
8%90%1%
3.69
4
Misty Morrow
79W–60L career · 4 lines in 2025
10%89%1%
3.68
4
Teri Bishop
181W–151L career · 8 lines in 2025
14%85%1%
3.65
Sarah Love
197W–133L career · 8 lines in 2025
25%75%<1%
3.60
4
Debi Johnson
139W–69L career · 8 lines in 2025
28%71%<1%
3.58
3.5
Jacki Joseph
223W–156L career · 11 lines in 2025
<1%67%33%
3.44
3.5
Jeanette Shepard
195W–143L career · 13 lines in 2025
<1%75%25%
3.40
Sara Ray
88W–102L career · 2 lines in 2025
81%19%<1%
3.38
Michelle Maxfield
206W–139L career · 13 lines in 2025
82%18%<1%
3.37
3.5
Debra Knowlton
170W–137L career · 10 lines in 2025
1%89%10%
3.32
Lisa Ewing
123W–122L career · 11 lines in 2025
2%92%5%
3.27
3.5
Jennie Stacey
153W–129L career · 2 lines in 2025
5%92%3%
3.23
Kelle Jones
59W–96L career · 6 lines in 2025
not enough data
Sara Green
32W–76L career · no 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.