Teams

Liberty Park-Kemp/Wallace

2023 USTA Adult 18 & Over · 4.5W AM

16 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 →
Schedule3 played
2023-05-22Lost 01
L#1 DoublesEmily Bott / Jessica Olsen vs Jen Dickey / Rochelle Obrien1-6, 1-6
2023-05-15Lost 01
L#1 DoublesEmily Bott / Jessica Olsen vs Brook Vietor / Wendy Widerburg6-3, 3-6, 0-1
2023-04-24Won 10
W#2 DoublesEmily Bott / Jessica Olsen vs Tracey Valentine / Lisa Garland3-6, 6-2, 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 standings4 teams · 4.5W AM
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Liberty Park -Miller/Woodbury62251538346
2Liberty Park Tennis-Picou/Heikkila62221844365
3Ivory Ridge-Hyde/Langston44182248372
4Liberty Park-Kemp/Wallace17122859399

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 3.87 estimated across 11 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.

4.27
Cyndi Jones
usually #1 Singles 65%, also #2 Singles 18% · published 4.5
Elizabeth Vigil
usually #1 Singles 41%, also #3 Doubles 29% · published 4.5
Emma Heiden
usually #2 Singles 67%, also #3 Doubles 17% · published 4.5
4.24
Emily Bott
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4.5
4.17
Libble Ginster
usually #1 Doubles 33%, also #2 Singles 33% · published 4.5
4.00
Kandice Taylor
usually #1 Doubles 44%, also #2 Doubles 38% · published 4.5
3.92
Emily Wallace
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 17% · published 4.5
3.82
Carlene Kemp
usually #1 Doubles 86%, also #2 Doubles 14% · published 4.5
Chantel Henderson
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #2 Singles 33% · published 4
Heather Paddock
usually #3 Doubles 29%, also #2 Doubles 29% · published 4
3.73
Jordyn Parry
usually #1 Doubles 46%, also #3 Doubles 31% · published 4
3.65
Heidi Brophy
usually #1 Singles 60%, also #3 Doubles 20% · published 4
3.61
Joanna Heiden
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 22% · published 4
3.61
Michelle Moscon
usually #3 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 4
3.54
Jessica Olsen
usually #1 Doubles 46%, also #3 Doubles 36% · published
Janine Nesseth
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 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.

Jordyn Parry + Elizabeth Vigil7357% games+8.2% vs expected
Carlene Kemp + Emily Wallace3940% games+3.4% vs expected
Jessica Olsen + Emily Bott272451% games+2.8% vs expected
Cyndi Jones + Kandice Taylor4253% games+2.6% vs expected
Joanna Heiden + Kandice Taylor4456% games−0.8% vs expected
Heather Paddock + Michelle Moscon151951% games−1.8% vs expected
Michelle Moscon + Emily Bott171349% games−2.4% vs expected
Carlene Kemp + Cyndi Jones3452% 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.

4.5
Cyndi Jones
154W–124L career · 17 lines in 2023
2%94%4%
4.27
4.5
Elizabeth Vigil
97W–75L career · 16 lines in 2023
not enough data
4.5
Emma Heiden
19W–10L career · 6 lines in 2023
not enough data
4.5
Emily Bott
50W–44L career · 3 lines in 2023
3%95%2%
4.24
4.5
Libble Ginster
71W–56L career · 9 lines in 2023
10%90%1%
4.17
4.5
Kandice Taylor
152W–168L career · 16 lines in 2023
48%52%<1%
4.00
4.5
Emily Wallace
93W–98L career · 6 lines in 2023
74%26%<1%
3.92
4.5
Carlene Kemp
58W–195L career · 7 lines in 2023
92%8%<1%
3.82
4
Chantel Henderson
8W–21L career · 6 lines in 2023
not enough data
4
Heather Paddock
121W–95L career · 7 lines in 2023
not enough data
4
Jordyn Parry
168W–127L career · 13 lines in 2023
4%94%2%
3.73
4
Heidi Brophy
76W–55L career · 5 lines in 2023
13%87%<1%
3.65
4
Joanna Heiden
93W–99L career · 9 lines in 2023
20%80%<1%
3.61
4
Michelle Moscon
90W–148L career · 8 lines in 2023
21%79%<1%
3.61
Jessica Olsen
72W–87L career · 11 lines in 2023
38%62%<1%
3.54
Janine Nesseth
29W–57L career · 3 lines in 2023
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.