Teams

Sports Mall-Heikkila/Wallace

2021 USTA Adult 18 & Over · 4.0W AM

19 players · average NTRP 4.00 / 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 →
Schedule4 played
2021-06-03Won 10
W#3 DoublesAMANDA NEFF / Emily King vs Kim Santiago / Lindsey Ramage7-5, 4-6, 1-0
2021-05-06Lost 01
L#2 DoublesAMANDA NEFF / Alyson Ellis vs Jennifer Moreton / Cassandra Suite-Smith6-2, 6-7, 0-1
2021-04-29vs Wasatch Rec Center-Berg/HronekWon 10
W#1 DoublesKimberly Rowland / Kristi Warren vs Rina Benson / Mandy Berg4-6, 6-4, 1-0
2021-04-15Won 10
W#2 DoublesKristi Warren / Kimberly Rowland vs Anji DowDell / Annalyn Adams7-6, 1-6, 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 standings3 teams · 4.0W AM
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Sports Mall-Heikkila/Wallace71281234316
2Spanish Fork-Blackhurst/Allen62241640329
3Eagleridge-Olsen35172350381

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 3.74 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.

4.43
Kimberly Simpson
usually #2 Doubles 40%, also #1 Doubles 27% · published
4.17
Arashan Heikkila
usually #3 Doubles 59%, also #2 Doubles 29% · published 4.5
4.09
Nanette Heath
usually #1 Doubles 44%, also #2 Doubles 38% · published 4.5
3.93
Alyson Ellis
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 40% · published 4
3.92
Emily Wallace
usually #1 Doubles 57%, also #2 Doubles 29% · published 4.5
3.90
Catherine Bliss
usually #3 Doubles 53%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.88
Kristi Roggensack
usually #2 Doubles 63%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 4
3.75
JaNae Smith
usually #3 Doubles 57%, also #1 Doubles 43% · published 4
AMANDA NEFF
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 4
Heather Paddock
usually #1 Doubles 43%, also #3 Doubles 29% · published 4
3.75
Kristi Warren
usually #1 Singles 33%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
3.72
Jackie Parker
usually #3 Doubles 83%, also #1 Doubles 17% · published 4
3.65
Heidi Brophy
usually #1 Singles 67%, also #2 Singles 33% · published 4
3.33
Megan Schey
usually #1 Singles 46%, also #2 Singles 46% · published 3.5
3.29
Kimberly Rowland
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.25
Carolee Romney
usually #1 Doubles 38%, also #2 Doubles 38% · published 3.5
3.08
Kimberly Holmstrom
published 3.5
Megan Rytting
usually #3 Doubles 42%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published
Sandy Adamson
usually #1 Doubles 40%, also #3 Doubles 40% · 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.

Arashan Heikkila + Megan Rytting5158% games+8.1% vs expected
Heather Paddock + JaNae Smith5558% games+7.2% vs expected
Catherine Bliss + Megan Rytting7163% games+7.0% vs expected
Emily Wallace + Nanette Heath351358% games+5.9% vs expected
Catherine Bliss + Arashan Heikkila301455% games+3.1% vs expected
Carolee Romney + Catherine Bliss21658% games+2.4% vs expected
Catherine Bliss + Kimberly Simpson12557% games+2.3% vs expected
Kimberly Simpson + Arashan Heikkila30663% games+1.9% 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.

Kimberly Simpson
144W–57L career · 15 lines in 2021
<1%70%30%
4.43
4.5
Arashan Heikkila
188W–76L career · 17 lines in 2021
9%90%1%
4.17
4.5
Nanette Heath
134W–74L career · 16 lines in 2021
24%76%<1%
4.09
4
Alyson Ellis
173W–47L career · 10 lines in 2021
<1%70%30%
3.93
4.5
Emily Wallace
93W–98L career · 14 lines in 2021
74%26%<1%
3.92
4
Catherine Bliss
239W–169L career · 15 lines in 2021
<1%78%22%
3.90
4
Kristi Roggensack
126W–91L career · 8 lines in 2021
<1%81%19%
3.88
4
JaNae Smith
221W–188L career · 7 lines in 2021
3%95%3%
3.75
4
AMANDA NEFF
50W–40L career · 2 lines in 2021
not enough data
4
Heather Paddock
121W–95L career · 7 lines in 2021
not enough data
Kristi Warren
249W–137L career · 12 lines in 2021
3%95%3%
3.75
4
Jackie Parker
53W–76L career · 6 lines in 2021
5%94%1%
3.72
4
Heidi Brophy
76W–55L career · 3 lines in 2021
13%87%<1%
3.65
3.5
Megan Schey
130W–131L career · 13 lines in 2021
1%90%10%
3.33
Kimberly Rowland
58W–66L career · 2 lines in 2021
1%93%6%
3.29
3.5
Carolee Romney
134W–164L career · 8 lines in 2021
3%95%3%
3.25
3.5
Kimberly Holmstrom
49W–73L career · no lines in 2021
26%74%<1%
3.08
Megan Rytting
100W–30L career · 12 lines in 2021
not enough data
Sandy Adamson
33W–59L career · 5 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.