Teams

Cottonwood Club-Ricker

2024 USTA Adult 40 & Over · 3.0W AM

14 players · average NTRP 3.07 / UTAH

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 →
Schedule8 played
2024-08-07Won 20
W#1 DoublesJane Woolley / Amanda Krejci vs Emily Matheson / Camille Weaver6-4, 2-6, 1-0
W#1 SinglesAlly Lyle vs Carrie Larsen2-6, 6-1, 1-0
2024-07-31vs Sunpro-Belliston/AndersonLost 02
L#1 DoublesJane Woolley / Amanda Krejci vs Cherylin Winkel / Cyndi Madsen1-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesRobin Asmar / Paula Naatz vs Carrie Jensen / Gina Anderson3-6, 1-6
L#1 DoublesJane Woolley / Tam Pham vs Jill McEwen / Linda Larsen6-7, 4-6
2024-07-17vs Park City MARC-KruegerLost 13
L#1 DoublesHolly Ricker / Tam Pham vs Lori Pfeiffer / Sarah Yates7-5, 4-6, 0-1
L#1 SinglesAmanda Krejci vs Dannan Siano3-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesMagdalena Kovacsovics / Robin Asmar vs Jennifer Williams / Melanie Schlachter3-6, 0-6
W#3 DoublesMelissa Child / Paula Naatz vs Kathleen DiCesaris / Cynthia Perry6-1, 1-6, 1-0
2024-07-10vs Wasatch Rec Center-Studdert/CannonLost 02
L#1 SinglesAlly Lyle vs Rachel Kahler6-7, 4-6
L#2 DoublesHolly Ricker / Jamie Tate vs Tracy Davis / Sharilee Hill2-6, 4-6
2024-06-26vs Sports Mall-Weaver/JohnstonLost 03
L#1 DoublesLori Carter / Robin Asmar vs Emily Peterson / Rebecca England6-7, 2-6
L#1 SinglesAmanda Krejci vs Tara Wood3-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesPaula Naatz / Margot Sharapova vs Angela Jensen / Dawn Farrell1-6, 0-6
2024-06-19vs Sunpro-Belliston/AndersonSplit 11
W#1 DoublesLori Carter / Jane Woolley vs Raquel Moss / Carrie Jensen6-4, 4-6, 1-0
L#1 SinglesAmanda Krejci vs Jill Marsh2-6, 2-6
W#1 SinglesAmanda Krejci vs Annette Ludlow6-1, 6-3
L#2 DoublesMelissa Child / Magdalena Kovacsovics vs Marti Skjervem / KayeLynn BASTIAN0-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesHolly Ricker / Jane Woolley vs Linda Larsen / Jill McEwen2-6, 3-6
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 3.0W AM 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 3.05 estimated across 7 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.

3.40
Taylor Haverkost
usually #1 Doubles 40%, also #1 Singles 40% · published 3.5
3.40
Lori Carter
usually #1 Doubles 83%, also #1 Singles 17% · published
3.25
Jane Woolley
usually #1 Doubles 80%, also #3 Doubles 20% · published
3.04
Ally Lyle
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 3
2.91
Amanda Krejci
usually #1 Singles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.88
Melissa Child
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3
Alison Barber
published 3
Carly Hazen
published 3
2.49
Holly Ricker
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3
Magdalena Kovacsovics
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
Margot Sharapova
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Paula Naatz
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
Robin Asmar
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
Tam Pham
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.

Paula Naatz + Holly Ricker2348% games+12.8% vs expected
Amanda Krejci + Jane Woolley12559% games+10.4% vs expected
Taylor Haverkost + Lori Carter15660% games+3.6% vs expected
Melissa Child + Amanda Krejci3648% games−2.9% vs expected
Robin Asmar + Melissa Child3545% games−4.3% vs expected
Holly Ricker + Melissa Child3749% games−5.9% vs expected
Holly Ricker + Taylor Haverkost2450% games−6.1% vs expected
Robin Asmar + Magdalena Kovacsovics3742% games−9.7% 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
Taylor Haverkost
138W–62L career · 5 lines in 2024
<1%76%24%
3.40
Lori Carter
107W–54L career · 6 lines in 2024
<1%77%23%
3.40
Jane Woolley
77W–34L career · 5 lines in 2024
4%93%4%
3.25
3
Ally Lyle
43W–20L career · 2 lines in 2024
<1%39%61%
3.04
3
Amanda Krejci
62W–55L career · 6 lines in 2024
<1%73%27%
2.91
3
Melissa Child
73W–73L career · 2 lines in 2024
<1%81%19%
2.88
3
Alison Barber
16W–23L career · type A · no lines in 2024
not enough data
3
Carly Hazen
11W–12L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
3
Holly Ricker
57W–151L career · type A · 3 lines in 2024
53%47%<1%
2.49
Magdalena Kovacsovics
50W–82L career · 3 lines in 2024
not enough data
Margot Sharapova
0W–7L career · 1 line in 2024
not enough data
Paula Naatz
57W–82L career · 6 lines in 2024
not enough data
Robin Asmar
25W–65L career · 3 lines in 2024
not enough data
Tam Pham
4W–3L career · no lines in 2024
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.