Teams

Liberty Park Tennis-Woodbury/Miller

2025 USTA Adult 18 & Over · 4.5W AM

18 players · average NTRP 4.29 / 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
2025-05-29Lost 01
L#1 DoublesLee Chase / Simone McInnis vs Kathy Miller-Rees / Shannon Garber5-7, 3-6
2025-05-12Lost 01
L#2 DoublesSimone McInnis / Lee Chase vs Ashley Park / Marie Roberts1-6, 3-6
2025-05-05Lost 01
L#1 DoublesLeslie Barrowes / Rachael Whitehouse vs Kimberly Simpson / Susan Picou1-6, 0-6
2025-04-28Lost 01
L#2 SinglesRachael Whitehouse vs Cambria Cook1-6, 0-6
2025-04-21vs Ivory Ridge-LangstonLost 01
L#3 DoublesLeslie Barrowes / Lee Chase vs Rachelle Tempest / Tricia Sederberg6-4, 3-6, 1-0
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 standings2 teams · 4.5W AM
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Utah/Eischeid/18&Over4.5W71301023285
2Liberty Park Tennis-Woodbury/Miller0893165427

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 3.96 estimated across 15 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.

4.28
Amy Woolley
usually #2 Doubles 57%, also #1 Doubles 36% · published 4.5
4.25
Diana Granger
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4.5
4.21
Paige Miller
usually #1 Doubles 57%, also #2 Doubles 29% · published
4.17
Debra Rawlings
usually #1 Doubles 62%, also #2 Doubles 31% · published 4.5
4.17
Libble Ginster
usually #2 Doubles 43%, also #1 Doubles 29% · published 4.5
4.17
Britney Klaetsch
usually #2 Singles 38%, also #1 Singles 25% · published 4.5
4.15
Karina Herman
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
4.11
Jane McQuade
usually #3 Doubles 38%, also #1 Doubles 38% · published 4.5
3.89
Cathy Davis
usually #2 Doubles 44%, also #3 Doubles 44% · published 4.5
3.79
Angela Bleak
usually #2 Doubles 46%, also #3 Doubles 31% · published 4
3.72
Kim Cronin
usually #1 Doubles 41%, also #2 Doubles 32% · published 4
3.71
Chandi Hurd
usually #1 Singles 35%, also #2 Singles 25% · published 4
3.66
Lee Chase
usually #1 Doubles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.62
Lynn Kokkola-Woodbury
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #1 Singles 17% · published 4
3.46
Simone McInnis
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published 4
Janine Nesseth
published
Leslie Barrowes
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
Rachael Whitehouse
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 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.

Jane McQuade + Paige Miller7160% games+8.6% vs expected
Kim Cronin + Chandi Hurd161058% games+4.3% vs expected
Kim Cronin + Angela Bleak71147% games+2.9% vs expected
Lee Chase + Simone McInnis2448% games+1.8% vs expected
Karina Herman + Amy Woolley331257% games+0.3% vs expected
Debra Rawlings + Diana Granger14558% games+0.2% vs expected
Amy Woolley + Cathy Davis151154% games−0.7% vs expected
Lynn Kokkola-Woodbury + Leslie Barrowes2439% games−0.9% 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.

4.5
Amy Woolley
192W–98L career · 14 lines in 2025
2%94%4%
4.28
4.5
Diana Granger
64W–41L career · 3 lines in 2025
3%95%3%
4.25
Paige Miller
82W–23L career · 7 lines in 2025
5%93%1%
4.21
4.5
Debra Rawlings
161W–102L career · 13 lines in 2025
10%90%1%
4.17
4.5
Libble Ginster
71W–56L career · 7 lines in 2025
10%90%1%
4.17
4.5
Britney Klaetsch
18W–40L career · 8 lines in 2025
10%89%<1%
4.17
Karina Herman
73W–68L career · 6 lines in 2025
13%87%<1%
4.15
4.5
Jane McQuade
267W–181L career · 8 lines in 2025
20%80%<1%
4.11
4.5
Cathy Davis
54W–88L career · 9 lines in 2025
80%20%<1%
3.89
4
Angela Bleak
214W–163L career · 12 lines in 2025
1%94%5%
3.79
4
Kim Cronin
380W–238L career · 22 lines in 2025
5%94%1%
3.72
4
Chandi Hurd
183W–142L career · 18 lines in 2025
6%93%1%
3.71
Lee Chase
49W–33L career · 3 lines in 2025
11%89%<1%
3.66
4
Lynn Kokkola-Woodbury
78W–137L career · 6 lines in 2025
17%83%<1%
3.62
4
Simone McInnis
99W–76L career · 5 lines in 2025
63%37%<1%
3.46
Janine Nesseth
29W–57L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Leslie Barrowes
31W–64L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Rachael Whitehouse
0W–2L career · 2 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.