Teams

NJ BLACK

2022 CTA ADULT 18-39 - DEN · WOMEN 3.5 - ADULT 18-39 - DEN

7 players · average NTRP 3.75 / COLORADO

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 →
Schedule6 played
2022-08-01vs GTC REDWon 10
W#1 Female DoublesDanielle Murphy / Macy Bauerle vs Annette Isham / Katelin Ramer6-3, 6-4
2022-07-14vs GPTC TEALSplit 11
L#1 Female DoublesDanielle Murphy / Holland Asbach vs Lindsay Gordon / Veronica Lequire6-7, 2-6
W#2 Female SinglesMacy Bauerle vs Shelby Treloar6-3, 6-0
2022-07-02vs TTA BLUELost 01
L#2 Female SinglesHolland Asbach vs Stephanie Saunders2-6, 1-6
2022-06-23vs BP REDSplit 11
L#1 Female DoublesHolland Asbach / Danielle Murphy vs Clarissa Manzi / Hilary Navy0-6, 7-6, 0-1
W#1 Female SinglesMacy Bauerle vs Karleigh Kimble6-0, 6-2
2022-06-16vs LPTC REDWon 10
W#2 Female SinglesMacy Bauerle vs Lauren Flynn6-1, 6-0
2022-06-09vs WP ORANGELost 01
L#1 Female DoublesHolland Asbach / Danielle Murphy vs Lindsey Bieging / Kelly Connor4-6, 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 WOMEN 3.5 - ADULT 18-39 - DEN 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 3.43 estimated across 5 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.

3.92
Macy Bauerle
usually #2 Female Singles 50%, also #1 Female Singles 25% · published 4
3.60
Caitlin Bock
published 4
3.34
Danielle Murphy
published 3.5
3.17
Holland Asbach
usually #1 Female Doubles 75%, also #2 Female Singles 25% · published 3.5
3.13
Maggie Carson
published
Pam Long
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.

Maggie Carson + Holland Asbach5258% games+16.6% vs expected
Macy Bauerle + Caitlin Bock2351% games+1.6% vs expected
Pam Long + Macy Bauerle4258% games−1.8% vs expected
Pam Long + Holland Asbach213 matchesnot enough data
Pam Long + Danielle Murphy123 matchesnot enough data
Caitlin Bock + Danielle Murphy033 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
Macy Bauerle
109W–34L career · 4 lines in 2022
<1%73%27%
3.92
4
Caitlin Bock
108W–59L career · no lines in 2022
22%78%<1%
3.60
3.5
Danielle Murphy
40W–39L career · no lines in 2022
<1%89%11%
3.34
3.5
Holland Asbach
46W–32L career · 4 lines in 2022
9%90%1%
3.17
Maggie Carson
59W–37L career · no lines in 2022
17%83%<1%
3.13
Michelle Pienknagura
8W–4L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Pam Long
33W–19L career · no lines in 2022
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.