Teams

Crane Creek Razzle

2022 USTA ADULT 18 and OVER - BOISE · TV

22 players · average NTRP 3.60 / IDAHO

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 →
Schedule6 played
2022-06-28vs Honey DeuceLost 01
L#3 DoublesMelissa Nielsen / Betsy McDonald vs Dana Rusin / Heidi Stipp5-7, 4-6
2022-06-23vs Crane Creek DazzleWon 10
W#1 DoublesBetsy McDonald / Melissa Nielsen vs Amy Boettcher / Lora Bonser6-3, 6-2
2022-06-21vs Tough LoveWon 10
W#3 DoublesMelissa Nielsen / Betsy McDonald vs Erica Gibbons / Jamie Hammond6-4, 6-3
2022-06-14vs YOURS!Split 11
L#1 DoublesCynthia Copple / Melissa Nielsen vs Kaylee Benear / Grace Elwer2-6, 4-6
W#3 DoublesDyan Goulet / Molly Otter vs Dawn Crochet / Fariss Mcgee6-3, 6-3
2022-06-09vs Messy Buns & GunsWon 10
W#2 DoublesElba Massena / Nancy Raeber vs Ginger Cummins / Kristen Gray6-2, 7-6
2022-06-07vs Net PartySplit 11
W#1 DoublesCynthia Copple / Nancy Raeber vs Shawna Byington / Andrea Reynolds3-6, 6-2, 1-0
L#3 DoublesDyan Goulet / Stephanie Churchman vs Rachel Boren / Marie Parker1-6, 6-2, 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 standings10 teams · TV
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Each Hit 3.58138722245
2Tough Love72261940327
3Net Party72252045372
4Honey Deuce63291636334
5Crane Creek Razzle63281740366
6YOURS!54242150412
7SUPREME COURT36192657437
8Messy Buns & Guns27133269449
9Crane Creek Dazzle18123368440
10Shenanigans09113473480

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 3.32 estimated across 16 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.

4.09
Maji Daines
published 4.5
3.67
Alexandra Hodson
published 4
3.65
Tanya Vaughan
published 4
3.43
Molly Schafer
published 3.5
3.42
Stacey Strong
published 3.5
3.39
Molly Otter
published 3.5
3.26
Glory Questad
usually #2 Singles 36%, also #1 Singles 36% · published 3.5
3.26
Stephanie Churchman
published 3.5
3.25
Betsy McDonald
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
Elba Massena
usually #2 Doubles 56%, also #3 Doubles 44% · published 3.5
3.21
Cynthia Copple
published 3.5
3.17
Betty Peterson
published 3.5
3.17
Jennifer Johnson
usually #1 Singles 75%, also #2 Singles 13% · published
3.10
Dyan Goulet
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.09
Gillian Donahey
published 3
3.06
Emily Allen
published 3.5
2.99
Suzie Wilson
published
Julie McDonald
published
Kara Taggart
usually #2 Doubles 43%, also #1 Doubles 43% · published
Lauren Noonan
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
Melissa Nielsen
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
Nancy Raeber
usually #1 Doubles 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.

Betsy McDonald + Emily Allen121253% games+8.5% vs expected
Cynthia Copple + Suzie Wilson4742% games+8.0% vs expected
Alexandra Hodson + Maji Daines25661% games+6.8% vs expected
Dyan Goulet + Stephanie Churchman12661% games+4.4% vs expected
Stacey Strong + Emily Allen292854% games+2.9% vs expected
Cynthia Copple + Stacey Strong10850% games−3.1% vs expected
Gillian Donahey + Dyan Goulet102038% games−14.0% vs expected
Lauren Noonan + Molly Otter382851% 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
Maji Daines
163W–74L career · no lines in 2022
24%76%<1%
4.09
4
Alexandra Hodson
155W–90L career · no lines in 2022
10%90%1%
3.67
4
Tanya Vaughan
148W–143L career · no lines in 2022
12%87%<1%
3.65
3.5
Molly Schafer
87W–80L career · no lines in 2022
<1%71%28%
3.43
3.5
Stacey Strong
64W–62L career · no lines in 2022
<1%74%26%
3.42
3.5
Molly Otter
136W–82L career · no lines in 2022
<1%81%19%
3.39
3.5
Glory Questad
97W–116L career · 11 lines in 2022
2%94%3%
3.26
3.5
Stephanie Churchman
136W–92L career · no lines in 2022
2%94%3%
3.26
3.5
Betsy McDonald
75W–47L career · 3 lines in 2022
3%95%3%
3.25
3.5
Elba Massena
23W–24L career · 9 lines in 2022
not enough data
3.5
Cynthia Copple
74W–96L career · no lines in 2022
5%93%1%
3.21
3.5
Betty Peterson
257W–369L career · no lines in 2022
10%90%1%
3.17
Jennifer Johnson
58W–96L career · 8 lines in 2022
10%90%1%
3.17
3.5
Dyan Goulet
60W–69L career · 2 lines in 2022
22%78%<1%
3.10
3
Gillian Donahey
94W–116L career · no lines in 2022
<1%24%76%
3.09
3.5
Emily Allen
82W–69L career · no lines in 2022
33%67%<1%
3.06
Suzie Wilson
81W–178L career · no lines in 2022
52%48%<1%
2.99
Julie McDonald
6W–8L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Kara Taggart
32W–46L career · 7 lines in 2022
not enough data
Lauren Noonan
64W–53L career · 6 lines in 2022
not enough data
Melissa Nielsen
47W–27L career · 4 lines in 2022
not enough data
Nancy Raeber
46W–28L career · 2 lines in 2022
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.