Teams

GEPTA-3.0-Adult/40+W(Boss)(NMSU)

SouthernNewMexico · 2025 USA ADULT 40 & OVER LEAGUE

9 players · average NTRP 2.88 / GEPTA

View scouting list →
Schedule
Flight standings11 teams · 2025 USA ADULT 40 & OVER LEAGUE
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1GEPTA/Alvarado/Adult 40 & over/3.0W9132820220
2GEPTA-3.0-Adult/40+W(Da Costa)(EPTC#2)82221838323
3GEPTA-3.0-Adult/40+W(Castaneda)(EPCC#2)73271332296
4GEPTA-3.0-Adult/40+W(Alarcon)(TW#2)73231742323
5GEPTA-3.0-Adult/40+W(Delgado)(EPTC#4)64211942352
6GEPTA-3.0-Adult/40+W(Arreola)(EPTC#1)64202044320
7GEPTA-3.0-Adult/40+W(Jabor)(EPCC#1)45201638317
8GEPTA-3.0-Adult/40+W(Cardenas)(CCC)37132759398
9GEPTA-3.0-Adult/40+W(Dennis)27162045313
10GEPTA-3.0-Adult/40+W(Boss)(NMSU)19112962407
11GEPTA-3.0-Adult/40+W(Wilcox)(TW#1)19112964437

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 2.60 estimated across 4 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.

2.82
Celia Al-Tahan
usually #1 Doubles 52%, also #2 Doubles 28% · published 3
2.69
Dina Schlotterbeck
usually #1 Doubles 38%, also #2 Doubles 38% · published 3
2.66
Anita Boss
usually #1 Doubles 53%, also #2 Doubles 27% · published 3
2.21
Denisse Arras
usually #3 Doubles 73%, also #2 Doubles 27% · published 2.5
Hilda Espinoza
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 50% · published
Loretta Reyes
usually #2 Doubles 55%, also #1 Singles 27% · published
Lourdes Olivas
usually #2 Doubles 57%, also #1 Doubles 31% · published
Monica Bordagaray
usually #3 Doubles 44%, also #2 Doubles 44% · published
Patricia Samonte
usually #3 Doubles 40%, also #2 Doubles 34% · 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.

Dina Schlotterbeck + Celia Al-Tahan10558% games+12.0% vs expected
Lourdes Olivas + Celia Al-Tahan273547% games+5.4% vs expected
Lourdes Olivas + Anita Boss121248% games+2.8% vs expected
Celia Al-Tahan + Anita Boss252249% games−2.8% vs expected
Dina Schlotterbeck + Loretta Reyes10359% gamesnot enough data
Patricia Samonte + Lourdes Olivas4746% gamesnot enough data
Lourdes Olivas + Monica Bordagaray3839% gamesnot enough data
Dina Schlotterbeck + Monica Bordagaray3641% gamesnot 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.

3
Celia Al-Tahan
119W–164L career · 57 lines in 2025
1%91%8%
2.82
3
Dina Schlotterbeck
62W–81L career · 29 lines in 2025
7%92%1%
2.69
3
Anita Boss
85W–102L career · 34 lines in 2025
10%89%<1%
2.66
2.5
Denisse Arras
10W–28L career · 11 lines in 2025
0%99%1%
2.21
Hilda Espinoza
1W–1L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Loretta Reyes
16W–8L career · 11 lines in 2025
not enough data
Lourdes Olivas
98W–118L career · 41 lines in 2025
not enough data
Monica Bordagaray
40W–96L career · 27 lines in 2025
not enough data
Patricia Samonte
28W–67L career · 35 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.