Teams

Ivory Ridge-Adams/Riley

2025 Fall Indoor League-Weekday · 3.5W

14 players · average NTRP 3.42 / UTAH

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2025-12-16vs SunPro-Thorpe/ChamberlainSplit 11
W#1 DoublesRebecca Suelzle / Tiffany Riley vs Alison Carlile / Laura Thorpe6-2, 6-3
L#2 DoublesJennifer Wells / DeeAnna Barlow vs Jennifer Hoffman / Haley Cook6-4, 2-5, 0-1
2025-12-09vs SunPro-Barber/CurtisWon 21
W#1 DoublesTiffany Riley / Rebecca Suelzle vs Katrina Harlan / Seidi Bennett7-6, 3-2
L#1 SinglesTamsin Danis vs Carly Planck1-6, 5-6
W#3 DoublesCecia Croft / Yolanda Morris vs Sherston Faux / Jenni Warner6-2, 7-5
2025-12-02vs Sunpro Parker/StringhamLost 12
W#1 DoublesTiffany Riley / Rebecca Suelzle vs Liz Rowley / Jill Marsh6-4, 5-4
L#1 SinglesTamsin Danis vs Sarah Alton1-6, 6-1, 0-1
L#3 DoublesHeidi Beckstead / Jamie Harris vs AnnMarie Chadwick / Carolyn Andrus3-6, 2-6
2025-11-18vs Heber Valley-Wood/OvertonWon 21
W#1 DoublesTiffany Riley / Sara Madsen vs Megan Overton / Mindi Finlayson2-6, 7-5, 1-0
W#1 SinglesTamsin Danis vs Elizabeth Heywood4-6, 4-2, 1-0
L#2 DoublesCecia Croft / DeeAnna Barlow vs Autumn Iverson / Carly Johnston4-6, 4-6
2025-11-11vs Wasatch Rec Center-Wade/StoneLost 12
L#1 DoublesRebecca Suelzle / Tiffany Riley vs Jessica Larson / Jocelyn Bennion6-3, 4-5, 0-1
L#2 DoublesSara Madsen / Heather Cottrell vs Jessica Studdert / Jen Dagley5-7, 5-1, 0-1
W#3 DoublesJamie Harris / Yolanda Morris vs Angela Ritchie / Katie Studdert7-5, 4-3
2025-11-04vs Team LowellWon 30
W#1 DoublesHeather Cottrell / Rebecca Suelzle vs Kari Bergeson / Jordan Osborne6-3, 6-0
W#2 DoublesHeidi Beckstead / Monique Tidd vs Maria Call / Elizabeth Lohner7-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesJennifer Wells / Cecia Croft vs Angela Woods / Kelli Lowell6-3, 6-4
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 standings16 teams · 3.5W
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Sunpro Parker/Stringham6020414157
2Ogden-Andersen5115919182
3SunPro-Barber/Curtis5116819165
4Sports Mall-Lake/Knowlton5117720180
5Sports Mall-Farr/Green4217718178
6Ivory Ridge-Adams/Riley4215921187
7Liberty Park-Creamer/Maxfield4216824195
8Wasatch Rec Center-Wade/Stone33131126198
9Team Lowell33101430207
10Pumpkin Smashers-Leishman/Ewing3391533212
11Ivory Ridge-Hardin/Elison2481636229
12Sports Mall-Wood1571735230
13SunPro-Thorpe/Chamberlain1581636234
14SL Tennis Spinners1581636234
15Ace Athletics-Harmon1542040238
16Heber Valley-Wood/Overton0661839247

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 3.21 estimated across 12 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.

3.55
Tamsin Danis
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 3.5
3.46
Tiffany Riley
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.34
Rebecca Suelzle
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.30
Cecia Croft
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.29
Yolanda Morris
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.26
Sara Madsen
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
3.18
DeeAnna Barlow
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.16
Heidi Beckstead
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.09
Heather Cottrell
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
3.06
Monique Tidd
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.03
Jennifer Wells
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.83
Christine Adams
published 3
Jamie Harris
published
Michelle Taylor
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.

Cecia Croft + Tiffany Riley10361% games+10.0% vs expected
Sara Madsen + Rebecca Suelzle10757% games+5.4% vs expected
Heidi Beckstead + Tiffany Riley0532% games+1.1% vs expected
Jennifer Wells + Cecia Croft9851% games+0.1% vs expected
Rebecca Suelzle + Tiffany Riley181053% games−0.3% vs expected
Cecia Croft + Heidi Beckstead51148% games−1.0% vs expected
Sara Madsen + Tiffany Riley12455% games−2.0% vs expected
Heather Cottrell + Sara Madsen91246% games−2.0% vs expected
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
Tamsin Danis
36W–17L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%37%63%
3.55
Tiffany Riley
103W–90L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%63%37%
3.46
3.5
Rebecca Suelzle
100W–65L career · 5 lines in 2025
1%86%13%
3.34
3.5
Cecia Croft
96W–109L career · 3 lines in 2025
2%91%7%
3.30
Yolanda Morris
14W–9L career · 1 line in 2025
2%91%7%
3.29
Sara Madsen
84W–71L career · 2 lines in 2025
3%92%5%
3.26
3.5
DeeAnna Barlow
39W–70L career · 2 lines in 2025
10%89%1%
3.18
3.5
Heidi Beckstead
78W–91L career · 2 lines in 2025
13%87%1%
3.16
Heather Cottrell
86W–114L career · 2 lines in 2025
26%73%<1%
3.09
Monique Tidd
29W–45L career · 1 line in 2025
33%67%<1%
3.06
Jennifer Wells
65W–108L career · 1 line in 2025
41%59%<1%
3.03
3
Christine Adams
46W–72L career · no lines in 2025
1%87%12%
2.83
Jamie Harris
21W–71L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Michelle Taylor
9W–3L career · no 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.