Teams

GEPTA/Tri-Level/3.0-4.0W/Colbert

SouthernNewMexico · 2025 TRI-LEVEL LEAGUE

11 players · average NTRP 4.00 / GEPTA

View scouting list →
Schedule
Flight standings8 teams · 2025 TRI-LEVEL LEAGUE
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1GEPTA/Tri-Level/3.0-4.0W/Colbert5214715175
2GEPTA/Cartwright/Trilevel/4.0-3.0W5214719191
3GEPTA/Tri-level/3.0-4.0W/Castaneda5212922176
4GEPTA/Tri-Level/3.0-4.0W/Molina4314716146
5GEPTA/Tri-Level/3.0-4.0W/Gabalindo43111023185
6GEPTA/Tri-Level/3.0-4.0W/Woo4391231222
7GEPTA/Tri-level/3.0-4.0W/Huft1651634228
8GEPTA/Tri-Level/3.0-4.0W/Garcia0751636235

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 3.81 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.

3.81
Allison Glass
usually #1 Doubles 44%, also #2 Doubles 38% · published 4
Erika Delgado
usually #3 Doubles 41%, also #1 Doubles 29% · published
Felisa Fuentes
usually #1 Doubles 52%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
Hannah Juarez
usually #3 Doubles 34%, also #2 Doubles 31% · published
Kate Colbert
usually #1 Doubles 46%, also #3 Doubles 31% · published
Luisa Fernanda Gomez Baca
usually #2 Doubles 43%, also #1 Doubles 27% · published
Maria Baeza
usually #1 Doubles 52%, also #3 Doubles 24% · published
Monica Medina
usually #2 Doubles 48%, also #1 Doubles 32% · published
Paulina Caraveo
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 20% · published
Sophia Borrego
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #2 Singles 17% · published
Zaira Delgado
usually #2 Singles 39%, also #1 Singles 23% · 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.

Erika Delgado + Kate Colbert12460% gamesnot enough data
Maria Baeza + Felisa Fuentes12355% gamesnot enough data
Monica Medina + Luisa Fernanda Gomez Baca6355% gamesnot enough data
Hannah Juarez + Allison Glass6158% gamesnot enough data
Erika Delgado + Hannah Juarez4162% gamesnot enough data
Luisa Fernanda Gomez Baca + Allison Glass4170% gamesnot enough data
Monica Medina + Felisa Fuentes213 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.

4
Allison Glass
31W–7L career · 16 lines in 2025
1%90%9%
3.81
Erika Delgado
107W–52L career · 17 lines in 2025
not enough data
Felisa Fuentes
57W–22L career · 27 lines in 2025
not enough data
Hannah Juarez
79W–45L career · 35 lines in 2025
not enough data
Kate Colbert
53W–20L career · 13 lines in 2025
not enough data
Luisa Fernanda Gomez Baca
45W–31L career · 36 lines in 2025
not enough data
Maria Baeza
58W–35L career · 24 lines in 2025
not enough data
Monica Medina
38W–25L career · 25 lines in 2025
not enough data
Paulina Caraveo
17W–16L career · 10 lines in 2025
not enough data
Sophia Borrego
6W–8L career · 6 lines in 2025
not enough data
Zaira Delgado
54W–34L career · 24 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.