EM GREEN
2022 CTA WOMEN'S 2.5 - DEN · WOMEN 2.5 - DEN
10 players · average NTRP 2.64 / 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 standings93 teams · WOMEN 2.5 - DEN
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1GAC RED | 7 | 0 | 6 | 111 |
| 2LPTC BLUE | 7 | 0 | 9 | 125 |
| 3SSHP RED | 7 | 0 | 10 | 136 |
| 4LEBTC RED | 7 | 0 | 11 | 106 |
| 5PCC BLUE | 7 | 0 | 12 | 131 |
| 6LAC BLUE | 6 | 0 | 9 | 115 |
| 7NJ GREEN | 6 | 1 | 10 | 103 |
| 8KC GREEN | 6 | 1 | 11 | 132 |
| 9PTC RED | 6 | 1 | 11 | 101 |
| 10SKY BLUE | 6 | 1 | 12 | 120 |
| 11PH GREEN | 6 | 1 | 12 | 121 |
| 12WC NAVY | 6 | 1 | 12 | 128 |
| 13GTC BLUE | 6 | 1 | 13 | 152 |
| 14KC SILVER | 6 | 1 | 13 | 151 |
| 15EM RED | 6 | 1 | 14 | 150 |
| 16SSH TEAL | 5 | 2 | 15 | 146 |
| 17PRC BLUE | 5 | 2 | 16 | 134 |
| 18WP NAVY | 5 | 2 | 17 | 175 |
| 19EM GREEN | 5 | 2 | 17 | 152 |
| 20RHCC RED | 5 | 2 | 18 | 166 |
| 21SSLT TEAL | 5 | 2 | 18 | 166 |
| 22VC BLUE | 5 | 2 | 19 | 166 |
| 23CCV RED | 5 | 2 | 20 | 169 |
| 24NJ SILVER | 5 | 2 | 20 | 177 |
| 25KC RED | 5 | 2 | 21 | 173 |
| 26DTC RED | 5 | 2 | 22 | 171 |
| 27CHCC NAVY | 5 | 2 | 26 | 199 |
| 28TTA BLUE | 4 | 2 | 15 | 136 |
| 29SKY RED | 4 | 3 | 18 | 159 |
| 30ATC YELLOW | 4 | 3 | 18 | 148 |
| 31CVTA RED | 4 | 3 | 20 | 155 |
| 32LTFC RED | 4 | 3 | 20 | 177 |
| 33NJ ORANGE | 4 | 3 | 20 | 174 |
| 34WC GREEN | 4 | 3 | 21 | 168 |
| 35VCC RED | 4 | 3 | 21 | 145 |
| 36CACM BLUE | 4 | 3 | 23 | 192 |
| 37BCST BLUE | 4 | 3 | 23 | 188 |
| 38GAC GREEN | 4 | 3 | 23 | 179 |
| 39GNO BLUE | 4 | 3 | 25 | 180 |
| 40HV ORANGE | 4 | 3 | 26 | 202 |
| 41MEA GOLD | 3 | 3 | 17 | 131 |
| 42LEBTC PINK | 3 | 3 | 17 | 117 |
| 43RCC BLUE | 3 | 3 | 19 | 147 |
| 44SSH YELLOW | 3 | 3 | 21 | 177 |
| 45RCC GREEN | 3 | 3 | 21 | 166 |
| 46CCV GREEN | 3 | 4 | 22 | 154 |
| 47RHCC BLUE | 3 | 4 | 23 | 175 |
| 48HW GREEN | 3 | 4 | 23 | 163 |
| 49HG RED | 3 | 4 | 23 | 163 |
| 50BM GREEN | 3 | 4 | 24 | 183 |
| 51WP GREEN | 3 | 4 | 25 | 173 |
| 52RMTC GREEN | 3 | 4 | 25 | 158 |
| 53SSH MAROON | 3 | 4 | 25 | 178 |
| 54HV PURPLE | 3 | 4 | 26 | 180 |
| 55KC NAVY | 3 | 4 | 26 | 169 |
| 56CACM GREEN | 3 | 4 | 26 | 191 |
| 57EM NAVY | 3 | 4 | 26 | 187 |
| 58WP YELLOW | 3 | 4 | 26 | 192 |
| 59LEBTC BLUE | 3 | 4 | 27 | 204 |
| 60WP RED | 3 | 4 | 27 | 188 |
| 61BCST RED | 3 | 4 | 28 | 205 |
| 62MVCC GREEN | 3 | 4 | 29 | 190 |
| 63BRMST BLUE | 2 | 4 | 20 | 159 |
| 64NJ YELLOW | 2 | 4 | 23 | 170 |
| 65NJ RED | 2 | 4 | 25 | 177 |
| 66KC GOLD | 2 | 5 | 23 | 181 |
| 67CM BLUE | 2 | 5 | 25 | 184 |
| 68SSLT NAVY | 2 | 5 | 26 | 185 |
| 69HW BLUE | 2 | 5 | 26 | 192 |
| 70VCC GREEN | 2 | 5 | 28 | 200 |
| 71HIW RED | 2 | 5 | 29 | 210 |
| 72WC RED | 2 | 5 | 29 | 214 |
| 73SSLT YELLOW | 2 | 5 | 30 | 188 |
| 74BM RED | 2 | 5 | 31 | 213 |
| 75CCV NAVY | 2 | 5 | 31 | 193 |
| 76BM NAVY | 2 | 5 | 31 | 194 |
| 77SH RED | 2 | 5 | 32 | 222 |
| 78HIW NAVY | 2 | 5 | 33 | 215 |
| 79HFII RED | 1 | 5 | 29 | 192 |
| 80RMTC RED | 1 | 5 | 33 | 211 |
| 81DTC BLUE | 1 | 6 | 31 | 216 |
| 82GR RED | 1 | 6 | 32 | 219 |
| 83GCC BLUE | 1 | 6 | 32 | 208 |
| 84SV ORANGE | 1 | 6 | 32 | 224 |
| 85TTA RED | 1 | 6 | 33 | 221 |
| 86EM SILVER | 1 | 6 | 33 | 213 |
| 87NJ BLACK | 1 | 6 | 34 | 219 |
| 88CM RED | 1 | 6 | 34 | 218 |
| 89CCV BLUE | 1 | 6 | 37 | 233 |
| 90KC BLUE | 0 | 5 | 25 | 156 |
| 91SSG BLUE | 0 | 6 | 28 | 191 |
| 92MC RED | 0 | 7 | 34 | 211 |
| 93CPV BLUE | 0 | 7 | 35 | 214 |
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 2.40 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.
| Tracy Pike + Ann Erb | 5–1 | 60% games | +10.0% vs expected |
| Tracy Pike + Amy Borman | 5–1 | 62% games | +8.4% vs expected |
| Barb Lindvall + Sarah Olney | 7–4 | 60% games | +7.1% vs expected |
| Sarah Olney + Ann Erb | 3–2 | 53% games | +3.4% vs expected |
| Dana Pluss Parks + Amy Borman | 6–3 | 55% games | +3.2% vs expected |
| Tracy Pike + Kristi Lamar | 5–1 | 56% games | −0.7% vs expected |
| Stephanie Sciez + Sarah Olney | 5–7 | 46% games | −1.8% vs expected |
| Amy Borman + Sarah Olney | 5–1 | 57% games | −3.3% vs expected |
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.