Teams

NJ GREEN

2023 CTA WOMEN'S DAYTIME DOUBLES - DEN · WOMEN 4.0 - DAYTIME

12 players · average NTRP 3.92 / 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
2023-06-22vs BM BLUESplit 11
W#1 DoublesCharlene Bailey / Lisa Mountain vs Emma Schilling / Jennifer Tucker6-4, 1-6, 1-0
L#2 DoublesLeslie Haines / Eve Wall vs Aree Bly / Deanna Deorio1-6, 7-6, 0-1
2023-06-08vs NJ TEALWon 10
W#2 DoublesCharlene Bailey / Janice Fischer vs Marcella Lucas / Laura Pivovar7-6, 6-1
2023-06-01vs CCC BLUEWon 10
W#1 DoublesLeslie Haines / Eve Wall vs Kerri Luther / Tiernan McKay3-6, 6-1, 1-0
2023-05-28vs KC-RH GREENWon 10
W#2 DoublesCharlene Bailey / Darcie Coy vs Susan Conroy / Stacy Gregg6-2, 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 standings for WOMEN 4.0 - DAYTIME 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 3.56 estimated across 10 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.

3.87
Charlene Bailey
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.84
Darcie Coy
published 4
3.70
Lynn Dalton
published 4
3.60
Morgan Cox
published
3.56
Eve Wall
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.55
Ann Stafford
published 4
3.50
Lisa Mountain
published
3.47
Leslie Haines
published
3.37
3.14
Jennifer Bennett
published
Janice Fischer
published
Nikole Randolph
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.

Charlene Bailey + Jennifer Bennett314 matchesnot enough data
Leslie Haines + Eve Wall044 matchesnot enough data
Leslie Haines + Janice Fischer134 matchesnot enough data
Ann Stafford + Darcie Coy213 matchesnot enough data
Ann Stafford + Morgan Cox123 matchesnot enough data
Charlene Bailey + Sandra Lucero Jacquez033 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
Charlene Bailey
129W–101L career · 3 lines in 2023
<1%82%17%
3.87
4
Darcie Coy
85W–59L career · no lines in 2023
1%87%13%
3.84
4
Lynn Dalton
30W–27L career · no lines in 2023
7%91%2%
3.70
Morgan Cox
5W–13L career · no lines in 2023
23%77%<1%
3.60
4
Eve Wall
43W–39L career · 2 lines in 2023
32%68%<1%
3.56
4
Ann Stafford
12W–19L career · no lines in 2023
35%65%<1%
3.55
Lisa Mountain
9W–6L career · no lines in 2023
51%49%<1%
3.50
Leslie Haines
8W–22L career · no lines in 2023
59%41%<1%
3.47
3.5
Sandra Lucero Jacquez
27W–39L career · no lines in 2023
<1%82%17%
3.37
Jennifer Bennett
22W–18L career · no lines in 2023
99%1%<1%
3.14
Janice Fischer
4W–12L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Nikole Randolph
0W–3L career · no lines in 2023
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.