Teams

GAC GOLD

2021 TRIO - DEN · WOMEN 3.0 - TRIO

6 players · average NTRP 3.00 / 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
2021-04-24vs LTFC BLUELost 01
L#1 DoublesKay Christensen / Mary DuBois vs Erin Clark / Audrey Moskowitz4-6, 4-6
2021-04-17vs CACM BLUEWon 21
L#1 DoublesKatherine Flahive / Wendy Liu vs Eden Parker / Leigh Kingman3-6, 0-6
W#1 SinglesMary DuBois vs Britt Nielsen6-1, 6-0
W#2 DoublesTracy Sickels / Rhonda Buder vs Gina Bach / Elizabeth Anderman6-2, 6-1
2021-04-10vs SSH GREENWon 30
W#1 DoublesKatherine Flahive / Kristin Campbell vs Anne Dingle / Linda McOsker6-3, 6-2
W#1 SinglesRhonda Buder vs Lynne Monnar6-2, 6-4
W#2 DoublesKay Christensen / Lorie Whalen vs Deborah Link / Jill Taylor6-4, 6-2
2021-04-03vs LTFC GREENLost 02
L#1 DoublesTracy Sickels / Rhonda Buder vs Marlyse Aguirre / Emily Dreyer2-6, 6-3, 0-1
L#2 DoublesWendy Liu / Lorie Whalen vs Soyon Bueno / Sheri Ovitt2-6, 1-6
2021-03-27vs GCC NAVYLost 02
L#1 DoublesKatherine Flahive / Kristin Campbell vs Allison Kaelberer / Rebecca Givens6-2, 2-6, 0-1
L#2 DoublesLorie Whalen / Tracy Sickels vs Sarah Dennis / Keena Metcalf0-6, 1-6
2021-03-20Won 10
W#1 DoublesWendy Liu / Tracy Sickels vs N/A6-0, 6-0
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 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 2.43 estimated across 1 rated player. 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.

2.43
Tracy Sickels
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3
Katherine Flahive
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
Kay Christensen
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
Lorie Whalen
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Mary DuBois
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 50% · published
Rhonda Buder
usually #1 Doubles 33%, also #1 Singles 33% · 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.

Tracy Sickels + Rhonda Buder3256% games+5.9% vs expected
Rhonda Buder + Kay Christensen381658% games+4.0% vs expected
Tracy Sickels + Kay Christensen4456% games−8.3% vs expected
Tracy Sickels + Katherine Flahive213 matchesnot enough data
Tracy Sickels + Mary DuBois213 matchesnot enough data
Lorie Whalen + Kay Christensen123 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
Tracy Sickels
59W–95L career · type A · 4 lines in 2021
70%30%<1%
2.43
Katherine Flahive
11W–18L career · 3 lines in 2021
not enough data
Kay Christensen
46W–26L career · 2 lines in 2021
not enough data
Lorie Whalen
18W–35L career · 3 lines in 2021
not enough data
Mary DuBois
18W–10L career · 2 lines in 2021
not enough data
Rhonda Buder
78W–49L career · 3 lines in 2021
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.