Teams

Court Charmers

2025 Tri Level League · 18-39 W3.0

17 players · average NTRP 3.40 / UTAH

View scouting list →
Schedule7 played
2025-07-31vs UT/FARR/TRILEVEL/W3.0/3.5/4.0Lost 02
L#2 DoublesCarly Ferro / Breanna Lamont vs Emily Hales / Rachel Mcillece2-6, 2-6
L#3 DoublesValerie Burstein / Hailey Jensen vs Jamison Harvey / Annie Mortensen1-6, 3-6
2025-07-17vs Utah Volleys-Hatch/PlanckLost 01
L#2 DoublesMarieke Timmer / Breanna Lamont vs Christa Orozco / Ellie Smith6-4, 0-6, 0-1
2025-07-12vs Salt Lake Tennis-BaynaLost 02
L#2 DoublesJordan Osborne / Breanna Lamont vs Sarah Ashley / Ellie Jacobs2-6, 4-6
L#3 DoublesPaige Smathers / Carly Ferro vs Kaestle Muir / Katrina Mills6-3, 1-6, 0-1
2025-07-10vs Liberty Park Tennis-MooreLost 02
L#2 DoublesAndrea Erickson / Maisie Stevens vs Amanda Moore / Emily Fuller7-5, 3-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesEmily Herring / Laura Needham vs Catherine Davey / Nicole Huston0-6, 7-5, 0-1
2025-06-26vs GladiatrixWon 10
W#3 DoublesCarly Ferro / Andrea Erickson vs Melina Ward / Alisa White7-6, 3-6, 1-0
2025-06-19vs Cottonwood Club-NielsenSplit 11
L#2 DoublesBreanna Lamont / Laura Needham vs Michelle Lynn Maxfield / Liesl Lambert6-7, 4-6
W#3 DoublesPaige Smathers / Hailey Jensen vs Karol Liced Sanchez Vanegas / Melissa Kent6-3, 6-4
2025-06-12vs Park City MARC-Dickey/HeywoodLost 02
L#2 DoublesJordan Osborne / Laura Needham vs Megan Leonard / Nicole Angerbauer1-6, 4-6
L#3 DoublesMadison Milligan / Hailey Jensen vs Chelsea Watts / Elizabeth Heywood2-6, 2-6
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 standings for 18-39 W3.0 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 3.11 estimated across 16 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.

4.32
Stephanie Walzer
usually #1 Doubles 57%, also #2 Doubles 43% · published 4.5
3.84
Lisa Park
usually #1 Doubles 38%, also #3 Doubles 38% · published 4
3.69
Gretchen Soffe
published 4
3.58
Elma Tatarevic
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.43
Maisie Stevens
usually #2 Doubles 40%, also #3 Doubles 40% · published
3.28
Paige Smathers
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.15
Marieke Timmer
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.10
Breanna Lamont
usually #2 Doubles 63%, also #3 Doubles 38% · published 3.5
3.00
Laura Needham
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.96
Jordan Osborne
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.95
Andrea Erickson
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3
2.62
Valerie Burstein
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.56
Carly Ferro
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.42
Madison Milligan
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 2.5
2.40
Amy Gadberry
published 2.5
2.37
Hailey Jensen
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Emily Herring
usually #3 Doubles 100% · 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.

Madison Milligan + Hailey Jensen9360% games+14.9% 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
Stephanie Walzer
82W–43L career · 7 lines in 2025
1%89%10%
4.32
4
Lisa Park
27W–28L career · 8 lines in 2025
1%86%13%
3.84
4
Gretchen Soffe
79W–60L career · no lines in 2025
9%90%1%
3.69
4
Elma Tatarevic
128W–82L career · 3 lines in 2025
28%72%<1%
3.58
Maisie Stevens
5W–5L career · 5 lines in 2025
69%31%<1%
3.43
Paige Smathers
40W–10L career · 2 lines in 2025
2%92%6%
3.28
Marieke Timmer
54W–20L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%14%86%
3.15
3.5
Breanna Lamont
9W–17L career · 8 lines in 2025
24%76%<1%
3.10
3
Laura Needham
42W–28L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%51%49%
3.00
Jordan Osborne
44W–95L career · 2 lines in 2025
61%39%<1%
2.96
3
Andrea Erickson
30W–11L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%63%37%
2.95
Valerie Burstein
14W–18L career · 1 line in 2025
19%81%<1%
2.62
3
Carly Ferro
4W–11L career · 3 lines in 2025
32%68%<1%
2.56
2.5
Madison Milligan
60W–74L career · 1 line in 2025
0%71%29%
2.42
2.5
Amy Gadberry
11W–5L career · no lines in 2025
0%76%24%
2.40
Hailey Jensen
36W–38L career · 3 lines in 2025
0%83%17%
2.37
Emily Herring
0W–4L career · 1 line 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.