Teams

MC BLUE

2022 TRIO - DEN · WOMEN 3.5 - TRIO

6 players · average NTRP 3.50 / 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 →
Schedule4 played
2022-04-09vs RHCC BLUEWon 21
L#1 DoublesNicole Parker / Sue Hickey vs Aimee Petri / Julia McVey4-6, 4-6
W#1 SinglesPatricia Billinger vs Melissa Pugh6-2, 6-3
W#2 DoublesMeg Nguyen / Ann Rhoads vs Sandra Michel / Carrie Warren6-0, 6-3
2022-04-02vs NJ BLUEWon 30
W#1 DoublesSue Hickey / Meg Nguyen vs Gina Stroup / Erin Manzolillo3-6, 6-2, 1-0
W#1 SinglesEllen Sprague vs April DeLauro6-4, 6-2
W#2 DoublesBonnie Cleaver / Ann Rhoads vs Kris Hansen / Renee Richker3-6, 7-6, 1-0
2022-03-26vs BP NAVYLost 12
W#1 DoublesEllen Sprague / Ann Rhoads vs Donna Cash / Katie Todd6-2, 6-3
L#1 SinglesPatricia Billinger vs Ronda Loredo6-7, 3-6
L#2 DoublesBonnie Cleaver / Meg Nguyen vs Jo Johnson / Judith Law6-7, 4-6
2022-03-19vs RHCC BLUEWon 21
W#1 DoublesSue Hickey / Nicole Parker vs Sandra Michel / Carrie Warren7-6, 6-3
W#1 SinglesEllen Sprague vs Melissa Pugh7-5, 6-2
L#2 DoublesPatricia Billinger / Bonnie Cleaver vs Valerie VanAlsburg / Susan Weese3-6, 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 - TRIO 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 3.46 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.

3.76
Sue Hickey
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.46
Ann Rhoads
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.40
Ellen Sprague
usually #1 Singles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
Bonnie Cleaver
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.23
Patricia Billinger
usually #1 Singles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
Meg Nguyen
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · 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.

Ann Rhoads + Meg Nguyen11754% games+2.5% vs expected
Ann Rhoads + Ellen Sprague224 matchesnot enough data
Bonnie Cleaver + Meg Nguyen213 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.

Sue Hickey
103W–39L career · 3 lines in 2022
2%94%3%
3.76
3.5
Ann Rhoads
88W–46L career · 3 lines in 2022
<1%61%39%
3.46
3.5
Ellen Sprague
100W–90L career · 3 lines in 2022
<1%78%22%
3.40
3.5
Bonnie Cleaver
14W–8L career · type S · 3 lines in 2022
not enough data
3.5
Patricia Billinger
68W–91L career · 3 lines in 2022
4%94%2%
3.23
Meg Nguyen
19W–13L career · 3 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.