Teams

RVR RED

2026 USTA TRI-LEVEL - MOUNTAINS · WOMEN 3.5-4.0-4.5 - TRI-LEVEL - MOUNTAINS

9 players · average NTRP 4.00 / 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
2026-08-11vs HCC REDWon 21
W#1 DoublesSarah Shook / Brittany Biebl vs Heidi Jobson / Christen Murchison6-3, 6-4
L#2 DoublesNancy Zeigel / Andrea Bryan vs Jen Jewett / Susie Kokoska6-4, 4-6, 0-1
W#3 DoublesKatie Bailey / Dianne Leoni vs Jill Moneypenny / Deborah Long6-1, 6-3
2026-07-28vs HCC REDLost 12
L#1 DoublesSusan Cheney / Laurie Feler vs Heidi Jobson / Dina Luther6-1, 6-7, 0-1
L#2 DoublesBarb Lansky / Nancy Zeigel vs Susie Kokoska / Christen Murchison0-6, 6-1, 0-1
W#3 DoublesKatie Bailey / Diane Boat vs Jill Moneypenny / Becky Rockwell6-3, 6-4
2026-07-21vs HCC REDSplit 11
L#1 DoublesSusan Cheney / Laurie Feler vs Heidi Jobson / Christen Murchison3-6, 7-5, 1-0
W#3 DoublesDiane Boat / Dianne Leoni vs Deborah Long / Jill Moneypenny7-6, 3-6, 1-0
2026-07-14vs HCC REDSplit 11
L#1 DoublesSusan Cheney / Laurie Feler vs Heidi Jobson / Dina Luther6-4, 3-6, 0-1
W#3 DoublesDiane Boat / Barb Lansky vs Shannon Fedrizzi / Deborah Long4-6, 6-0, 1-0
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 3.5-4.0-4.5 - TRI-LEVEL - MOUNTAINS 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 3.69 estimated across 8 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.

4.29
Sarah Shook
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
4.26
Laurie Feler
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
Brittany Biebl
published 4.5
3.68
Nancy Zeigel
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.49
Katie Bailey
published
3.47
Lindsey Cheney
published
3.45
Dianne Leoni
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.44
Barb Lansky
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.44
Diane Boat
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
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.

Diane Boat + Dianne Leoni3255% gamesnot 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.

4.5
Sarah Shook
35W–16L career · 1 line in 2026
2%91%7%
4.29
4.5
Laurie Feler
42W–38L career · 3 lines in 2026
3%93%4%
4.26
4.5
Brittany Biebl
6W–2L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
4
Nancy Zeigel
63W–59L career · 2 lines in 2026
9%89%1%
3.68
Katie Bailey
18W–5L career · no lines in 2026
<1%52%48%
3.49
Lindsey Cheney
18W–15L career · no lines in 2026
58%42%<1%
3.47
3.5
Dianne Leoni
27W–13L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%65%35%
3.45
3.5
Barb Lansky
38W–22L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%65%34%
3.44
3.5
Diane Boat
50W–20L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%66%34%
3.44

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.