Teams

GCC PURPLE

2026 CTA TWILIGHT - DEN · WOMEN 3.5 - TWILIGHT

12 players · average NTRP 3.44 / 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
2026-09-03vs SKY PURPLESplit 11
L#1 DoublesLauren Sveen / Jennifer Rodriguez vs Casey Hermansen / Mallory Cleveland4-6, 3-6
W#2 DoublesLizzie Vann / Maribeth Milford vs Christine Atkinson / Camilla Almuti6-4, 6-3
2026-08-27vs EM GREENLost 12
L#1 DoublesAmy Reilly / Ronit Hicks vs Libby Hanna / Kathryn Terry3-6, 5-7
L#1 SinglesBrooke Beasley vs Katy Kappler1-6, 1-6
W#2 DoublesMarcy White / Katherine Crisham vs Erica Roybal / Jennifer Grumann3-6, 7-6, 1-0
2026-08-20vs CACM NAVYLost 03
L#1 DoublesAmy Reilly / Ronit Hicks vs Carrie Steuart / Mary Deluccia6-7, 5-7
L#1 SinglesTricia Blechman vs Regina Fontaine1-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesJennifer Rodriguez / Lauren Sveen vs Maricris Doolan / Mary Mathis4-6, 2-6
2026-08-13vs CACM GREENLost 12
W#1 DoublesTricia Blechman / Hilary McDonald vs Helen Wilson / Tandy Dilworth6-1, 6-3
L#1 SinglesJennifer Rodriguez vs Christin Hanley6-3, 0-6, 0-1
L#2 DoublesKatherine Crisham / Marcy White vs Dana Breitenstein / Ellie Carothers Kelly1-6, 4-6
2026-08-06vs DTP NAVYLost 12
L#1 DoublesTricia Blechman / Hilary McDonald vs Brae Holdridge / Shannon Whitley0-6, 6-4, 0-1
L#1 SinglesKatherine Crisham vs Callie Hennessy2-6, 4-6
W#2 DoublesBrooke Beasley / Marcy White vs Meredith Giske / Emma Tiernon6-3, 2-6, 1-0
2026-07-30vs WP-G NAVYLost 03
L#1 DoublesRonit Hicks / Marcy White vs Nghi Hoang / Madison Hines3-6, 7-6, 0-1
L#1 SinglesMaribeth Milford vs Cynthia Lopez2-6, 4-6
L#2 DoublesJennifer Rodriguez / Julie Buckley vs Virginia Foster / Jessica Friedrich4-6, 3-6
2026-07-23vs WP PINKLost 12
L#1 DoublesAmy Reilly / Brooke Beasley vs Laura Wasserman / Rachel Williams2-6, 0-6
W#1 SinglesLizzie Vann vs Audrey Hamilton6-2, 6-3
L#2 DoublesKatherine Crisham / Marcy White vs Lauren Petronella / Jordan Cadman3-6, 6-7
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 standings17 teams · WOMEN 3.5 - TWILIGHT
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1WP PINK3072670
2CP WHITE3072670
3HRCA-N WHITE3184983
4HFII BLACK2163873
5BTA-IBM PURPLE21541067
6VCC NAVY21541188
7HG PINK21541185
8BP YELLOW12451184
9PTC BLUE12361285
10PRC ORANGE12271489
11PRC PINK124514101
12HFII GOLD12361497
13LTA-P RED134817108
14KNO YELLOW03271490
15HRCA-N PURPLE032715102
16GCC PURPLE03271599
17GAC ORANGE03271597

Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.

See the full flight, with every team’s record

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 11 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.

3.39
Hilary McDonald
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.28
Tricia Blechman
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #1 Singles 33% · published 3.5
3.28
Lizzie Vann
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
3.21
Marcy White
usually #2 Doubles 80%, also #1 Doubles 20% · published 3.5
3.20
Ronit Hicks
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.12
Jennifer Rodriguez
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 25% · published
3.11
Amy Reilly
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.10
Brooke Beasley
usually #1 Singles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.02
Lauren Sveen
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
2.93
Katherine Crisham
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #1 Singles 25% · published 3
2.90
Julie Buckley
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Maribeth Milford
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · 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.

Katherine Crisham + Lizzie Vann6069% games+11.7% vs expected
Hilary McDonald + Tricia Blechman21960% games+6.4% vs expected
Amy Reilly + Hilary McDonald6353% games+4.2% vs expected
Amy Reilly + Ronit Hicks242150% games−1.5% vs expected
Ronit Hicks + Brooke Beasley2549% games−2.0% vs expected
Amy Reilly + Brooke Beasley41145% games−2.6% vs expected
Marcy White + Brooke Beasley6446% games−4.5% vs expected
Marcy White + Hilary McDonald5166% 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.

3.5
Hilary McDonald
84W–49L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%81%19%
3.39
3.5
Tricia Blechman
56W–43L career · 3 lines in 2026
2%94%4%
3.28
Lizzie Vann
22W–1L career · 2 lines in 2026
2%94%4%
3.28
3.5
Marcy White
61W–95L career · 5 lines in 2026
5%93%1%
3.21
3.5
Ronit Hicks
87W–52L career · 3 lines in 2026
6%93%1%
3.20
Jennifer Rodriguez
32W–37L career · 4 lines in 2026
17%83%<1%
3.12
3.5
Amy Reilly
59W–52L career · 3 lines in 2026
19%81%<1%
3.11
3.5
Brooke Beasley
46W–52L career · 3 lines in 2026
21%79%<1%
3.10
3.5
Lauren Sveen
45W–56L career · 2 lines in 2026
45%55%<1%
3.02
3
Katherine Crisham
33W–21L career · 4 lines in 2026
<1%71%29%
2.93
Julie Buckley
10W–30L career · 1 line in 2026
78%22%<1%
2.90
Maribeth Milford
1W–1L career · 2 lines in 2026
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.