LTC-M GREEN
2024 USTA ADULT 40 & OVER - DEN · WOMEN 3.5 - 40 & OVER
11 players · average NTRP 3.36 / COLORADO
No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.
Schedule7 played
i
Flight standings37 teams · WOMEN 3.5 - 40 & OVER
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1SS-LT BLUE | 6 | 1 | 18 | 182 |
| 2BCC NAVY | 6 | 1 | 20 | 202 |
| 3PRC NAVY | 6 | 1 | 21 | 192 |
| 4RMTC GREEN | 6 | 1 | 28 | 211 |
| 5LTA-Q NAVY | 5 | 1 | 26 | 220 |
| 6SKY TEAL | 5 | 2 | 15 | 177 |
| 7DCC RED | 5 | 2 | 19 | 212 |
| 8KC-RH TEAL | 5 | 2 | 21 | 220 |
| 9KC-CC NAVY | 5 | 2 | 23 | 229 |
| 10CCC TEAL | 5 | 2 | 25 | 218 |
| 11HW BLUE | 5 | 2 | 32 | 237 |
| 12CM PINK | 4 | 3 | 24 | 180 |
| 13GCC GREEN | 4 | 3 | 29 | 256 |
| 14HFII BLUE | 4 | 3 | 30 | 258 |
| 15HV PINK | 4 | 3 | 30 | 215 |
| 16HRCA-N GREEN | 4 | 3 | 32 | 246 |
| 17LTFC PINK | 3 | 4 | 31 | 267 |
| 18VC NAVY | 3 | 4 | 33 | 262 |
| 19KC-CC GREEN | 3 | 4 | 34 | 259 |
| 20CACM TEAL | 3 | 4 | 35 | 258 |
| 21SS-LT NAVY | 3 | 4 | 37 | 274 |
| 22PTC BLUE | 3 | 4 | 37 | 269 |
| 23VCC TEAL | 3 | 4 | 39 | 281 |
| 24RCC BLUE | 2 | 4 | 32 | 235 |
| 25EPR NAVY | 2 | 5 | 38 | 279 |
| 26PCC RED | 2 | 5 | 41 | 277 |
| 27SS-H ORANGE | 2 | 5 | 45 | 309 |
| 28LEBTC NAVY | 1 | 6 | 39 | 295 |
| 29PCRK BLUE | 1 | 6 | 40 | 272 |
| 30KNO RED | 1 | 6 | 42 | 287 |
| 31BTA-IBM RED | 1 | 6 | 43 | 286 |
| 32GPTC GREEN | 1 | 6 | 45 | 276 |
| 33CVTA ORANGE | 1 | 6 | 46 | 313 |
| 34LTC-M GREEN | 0 | 7 | 40 | 297 |
| 35LTC-D RED | 0 | 7 | 46 | 310 |
| 36FOX GOLD | 0 | 7 | 48 | 305 |
| 37CP NAVY | 0 | 7 | 56 | 336 |
Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.
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 3.14 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.
Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.
| Lauren Eddy + Patricia Billinger | 5–2 | 56% games | +5.4% vs expected |
| Lauren Eddy + Amy Whittier | 3–2 | 55% games | not enough data |
| Amy Whittier + Amy Molnar | 3–2 | 51% games | not enough data |
| Kristen Hanson + Zoe Epstein | 0–4 | 4 matches | not enough data |
| Sara Lewandowski + Zoe Epstein | 0–3 | 3 matches | not enough data |
| Emily Rugaber + Angelique Manley | 2–1 | 3 matches | not enough data |
| Angelique Manley + Amy Molnar | 0–3 | 3 matches | not enough data |
| Amy Whittier + Zoe Epstein | 0–3 | 3 matches | not enough data |
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.
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.