Teams

AG BLUE

2026 CTA TWILIGHT - MOUNTAINS · WOMEN 3.5 - TWILIGHT - MOUNTAINS

9 players · average NTRP 3.40 / 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 →
Schedule2 played
2026-08-24vs RVR GOLDLost 12
L#1 DoublesAmy Thornton / Meghan Hegberg vs Carla Ostberg / Zoe Herreid6-4, 1-6, 0-1
W#1 SinglesBriar Schreiber vs Yoko Smith Rhodes6-4, 4-6, 1-0
L#2 DoublesBrady Emens / Erin Zalinski vs Susan Blizzard / Katie Karow2-6, 5-7
2026-08-17vs CROWN REDWon 21
W#1 DoublesErin Zalinski / Meghan Hegberg vs Kathy Robinson / Judi Simecek7-5, 3-6, 1-0
L#1 SinglesTsvetana Mawicke vs Tatum Rees7-5, 1-6, 0-1
W#2 DoublesLauren Noble / Kimberly Welsh vs Alexandra Karlinski / Kelly Capri7-6, 6-2
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 standings3 teams · WOMEN 3.5 - TWILIGHT - MOUNTAINS
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1RVR GOLD1030012
2AG BLUE000000
3BASALT GOLD0103638

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 3.13 estimated across 9 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.

3.29
Meghan Hegberg
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.25
Tsvetana Mawicke
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
3.23
Lauren Noble
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.18
Briar Schreiber
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 3.5
3.18
Lily Freiborg
published
3.10
Erin Zalinski
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.01
Amy Thornton
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
2.96
Kimberly Welsh
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.93
Brady Emens
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
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.

Briar Schreiber + Lily Freiborg4157% games+14.0% vs expected
Meghan Hegberg + Brady Emens5748% games+8.7% vs expected
Tsvetana Mawicke + Lauren Noble15562% games+5.2% vs expected
Meghan Hegberg + Lauren Noble4256% games+2.6% vs expected
Meghan Hegberg + Erin Zalinski5452% games+1.6% vs expected
Meghan Hegberg + Amy Thornton4353% games+1.5% vs expected
Amy Thornton + Brady Emens3441% games+0.1% vs expected
Erin Zalinski + Amy Thornton044 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.

3.5
Meghan Hegberg
59W–52L career · 2 lines in 2026
1%94%5%
3.29
Tsvetana Mawicke
34W–24L career · 1 line in 2026
3%95%3%
3.25
Lauren Noble
47W–22L career · 1 line in 2026
4%94%2%
3.23
3.5
Briar Schreiber
26W–29L career · 1 line in 2026
8%91%1%
3.18
Lily Freiborg
10W–5L career · no lines in 2026
8%91%1%
3.18
3.5
Erin Zalinski
87W–105L career · 2 lines in 2026
22%78%<1%
3.10
3.5
Amy Thornton
17W–24L career · 1 line in 2026
46%54%<1%
3.01
Kimberly Welsh
21W–46L career · 1 line in 2026
61%39%<1%
2.96
3
Brady Emens
25W–58L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%70%30%
2.93

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.