Teams

Sports Mall-Finlay/Sampson

2024 USTA Adult 40 & Over · 3.5W PM

14 players · average NTRP 3.44 / UTAH

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 →
Schedule

Flight standings for 3.5W PM 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 3.25 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.

3.59
Jennifer Sampson
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 4
3.40
Tiffany Riley
usually #2 Doubles 36%, also #3 Doubles 36% · published
3.36
Michelle Edwards
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published
3.33
Debra Knowlton
usually #1 Doubles 44%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.27
Lora Lyon
usually #1 Doubles 54%, also #3 Doubles 31% · published
3.25
Brenda Green
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.22
Yoko Walljasper
usually #1 Doubles 40%, also #3 Doubles 40% · published 3.5
3.15
Claudine Finlay
usually #3 Doubles 44%, also #1 Singles 33% · published 3.5
3.15
Stacy Criddle
usually #1 Doubles 55%, also #2 Doubles 36% · published
3.10
Danna Miller
usually #2 Doubles 57%, also #3 Doubles 14% · published 3.5
2.99
Rebecca England
usually #1 Doubles 39%, also #2 Doubles 39% · published
Emily Peterson
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published 3
Karlene Johnston
usually #1 Doubles 39%, also #3 Doubles 39% · published 3
Shauna Lake
usually #2 Doubles 71%, also #1 Doubles 14% · 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.

Emily Peterson + Karlene Johnston4249% games+10.3% vs expected
Claudine Finlay + Brenda Green9162% games+8.1% vs expected
Emily Peterson + Lora Lyon7554% games+5.6% vs expected
Brenda Green + Lora Lyon141052% games+5.5% vs expected
Jennifer Sampson + Stacy Criddle3357% games+5.3% vs expected
Stacy Criddle + Yoko Walljasper5163% games+3.3% vs expected
Shauna Lake + Tiffany Riley4155% games+2.7% vs expected
Rebecca England + Lora Lyon5549% games+2.4% vs expected
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
Jennifer Sampson
208W–140L career · 16 lines in 2024
24%76%<1%
3.59
Tiffany Riley
102W–91L career · 11 lines in 2024
<1%78%22%
3.40
Michelle Edwards
94W–63L career · 5 lines in 2024
<1%86%14%
3.36
3.5
Debra Knowlton
169W–137L career · 9 lines in 2024
1%90%9%
3.33
Lora Lyon
102W–83L career · 13 lines in 2024
2%94%4%
3.27
3.5
Brenda Green
130W–69L career · 6 lines in 2024
3%95%3%
3.25
3.5
Yoko Walljasper
308W–196L career · 10 lines in 2024
5%94%1%
3.22
3.5
Claudine Finlay
195W–193L career · 9 lines in 2024
12%87%<1%
3.15
Stacy Criddle
154W–122L career · 11 lines in 2024
13%87%<1%
3.15
3.5
Danna Miller
108W–117L career · 7 lines in 2024
23%77%<1%
3.10
Rebecca England
110W–96L career · 13 lines in 2024
54%46%<1%
2.99
3
Emily Peterson
58W–77L career · 10 lines in 2024
not enough data
3
Karlene Johnston
131W–109L career · 13 lines in 2024
not enough data
Shauna Lake
135W–130L career · 7 lines in 2024
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.