Teams

CACM RED

2023 CTA TWILIGHT - DEN · WOMEN 4.0 - TWILIGHT

6 players · average NTRP 3.90 / 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 →
Schedule7 played
2023-09-07vs GCC BLUELost 01
L#1 DoublesLiza Butterfield / Helen Young vs Rebecca Potts / Kristen Abell5-7, 7-5, 0-1
2023-08-31vs LTFC REDLost 01
L#1 DoublesJaylyn Bunning / Diana Rael vs Selket Allen / Leslie DeVilliers3-6, 5-7
2023-08-24vs CACM BLUEWon 10
W#2 DoublesDiana Rael / Jaylyn Bunning vs Andrea Puschaver / NATALIE KOONTZ5-7, 7-6, 1-0
2023-08-17vs ATC REDWon 20
W#1 DoublesJaylyn Bunning / Amy Abalos vs Caroline Hansen / Cathryn Sheldon3-6, 7-5, 1-0
W#2 DoublesHelen Young / Diana Rael vs Bobbie Brandon / Frances Hall5-7, 7-6, 1-0
2023-08-10vs SS-H REDLost 01
L#2 DoublesLiza Butterfield / Robin Ashmore-Guin vs Adriana Vernon / Ann Grace6-3, 3-6, 0-1
2023-08-03vs SKY BLUELost 02
L#1 DoublesDiana Rael / Helen Young vs Karen Calle / Jane Gonnella6-3, 2-6, 1-0
L#2 DoublesJaylyn Bunning / Liza Butterfield vs Tori Hutchens / Megan Muller4-6, 6-2, 0-1
2023-07-27vs EM REDLost 01
L#1 DoublesJaylyn Bunning / Amanda Meier vs Lisa OConnor / Stacy Roode4-6, 2-6
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 WOMEN 4.0 - TWILIGHT 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 6 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.

3.88
Amanda Meier
published 4
3.68
Liza Butterfield
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.56
Jaylyn Bunning
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published 4
3.51
Robin Ashmore-Guin
published
3.50
Diana Rael
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.22
Amy Abalos
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.

Diana Rael + Jaylyn Bunning3447% games−6.8% vs expected
Liza Butterfield + Diana Rael4156% gamesnot enough data
Liza Butterfield + Jaylyn Bunning134 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
Amanda Meier
24W–12L career · no lines in 2023
<1%81%19%
3.88
4
Liza Butterfield
46W–33L career · 3 lines in 2023
10%89%1%
3.68
4
Jaylyn Bunning
72W–87L career · type A · 5 lines in 2023
33%67%<1%
3.56
Robin Ashmore-Guin
3W–9L career · no lines in 2023
48%52%<1%
3.51
4
Diana Rael
54W–75L career · 4 lines in 2023
49%51%<1%
3.50
3.5
Amy Abalos
4W–11L career · no lines in 2023
6%92%2%
3.22

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.