Teams

Liberty Park-Kemp/Wallace

2025 USTA Adult 40 & Over · 4.5W AM

18 players · average NTRP 4.36 / 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 →
Schedule6 played
2025-07-28vs SunPro-Allen/SeegmillerLost 01
L#3 DoublesStaci McCubbins / Jennifer Rasmussen vs Cindy Whip / Tyra Cook2-6, 6-7
2025-07-21vs Ivory Ridge-LangstonSplit 11
W#1 DoublesEmily Bott / Jessica Olsen vs Tanya Conrad / Katy Myers6-3, 6-4
L#3 DoublesAmy Johnson / Kathy Miller-Rees vs Rachelle Tempest / Jennifer Burr4-6, 4-6
2025-07-07Lost 01
L#3 DoublesAmy Johnson / Shanda Stoner vs Lauren Hawley / Regina Johnson0-6, 4-6
2025-06-30Split 11
L#1 DoublesEmily Bott / Jessica Olsen vs Cathy Davis / Amy Woolley2-6, 2-6
W#3 DoublesJennifer Rasmussen / Shanda Stoner vs Kat Fuller / Trisha Cutrer6-4, 7-5
2025-06-23vs SunPro-Allen/SeegmillerLost 01
L#1 DoublesEmily Bott / Jessica Olsen vs Julie Winterton / Kimberly Clawson4-6, 6-7
2025-06-09Lost 03
L#1 SinglesAmy Johnson vs Jessica Schulz2-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesEmily Bott / Jessica Olsen vs Brook Vietor / Wendy Widerburg1-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesStaci McCubbins / Jennifer Rasmussen vs Rosa McGuire / Heidi Gordon1-6
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 4.5W AM 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 3.93 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.

4.41
Lora Cobabe
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published 4.5
4.27
Cyndi Jones
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 4.5
Amy Hansen
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
4.24
Emily Bott
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 4.5
4.14
Christine Fotheringham
usually #2 Doubles 57%, also #1 Doubles 43% · published 4.5
4.09
Nanette Heath
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
4.00
Kandice Taylor
usually #2 Doubles 63%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 4.5
3.99
Kathy Miller-Rees
usually #2 Doubles 35%, also #3 Doubles 35% · published 4.5
3.96
Alisa Gardner
usually #1 Doubles 55%, also #2 Doubles 27% · published 4
3.92
Emily Wallace
usually #1 Doubles 86%, also #2 Doubles 14% · published 4.5
3.88
Staci McCubbins
usually #3 Doubles 43%, also #2 Doubles 43% · published 4
3.82
Carlene Kemp
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 4.5
3.78
Shanda Stoner
usually #2 Doubles 38%, also #3 Doubles 38% · published
3.61
Michelle Moscon
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.60
Jennifer Rasmussen
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.60
Amy Johnson
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #1 Singles 33% · published 4
3.54
Jessica Olsen
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
Shannon Garber
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 17% · 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.

Kathy Miller-Rees + Lora Cobabe4262% games+16.1% vs expected
Kandice Taylor + Shanda Stoner6352% games+15.5% vs expected
Shannon Garber + Kathy Miller-Rees6061% games+11.3% vs expected
Alisa Gardner + Christine Fotheringham14562% games+10.5% vs expected
Emily Wallace + Lora Cobabe201854% games+6.9% vs expected
Emily Wallace + Nanette Heath351358% games+5.9% vs expected
Carlene Kemp + Emily Wallace3940% games+3.4% vs expected
Nanette Heath + Kandice Taylor9651% games+3.0% 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.

4.5
Lora Cobabe
35W–34L career · 5 lines in 2025
<1%76%24%
4.41
4.5
Cyndi Jones
154W–124L career · 11 lines in 2025
2%94%4%
4.27
4.5
Amy Hansen
43W–44L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
4.5
Emily Bott
50W–44L career · 4 lines in 2025
3%95%2%
4.24
4.5
Christine Fotheringham
213W–62L career · 7 lines in 2025
14%86%<1%
4.14
4.5
Nanette Heath
134W–74L career · 3 lines in 2025
24%76%<1%
4.09
4.5
Kandice Taylor
152W–168L career · 8 lines in 2025
48%52%<1%
4.00
4.5
Kathy Miller-Rees
150W–147L career · 20 lines in 2025
53%47%<1%
3.99
4
Alisa Gardner
197W–48L career · 11 lines in 2025
<1%63%37%
3.96
4.5
Emily Wallace
93W–98L career · 7 lines in 2025
74%26%<1%
3.92
4
Staci McCubbins
69W–103L career · 7 lines in 2025
<1%82%18%
3.88
4.5
Carlene Kemp
58W–195L career · 4 lines in 2025
92%8%<1%
3.82
Shanda Stoner
39W–112L career · 8 lines in 2025
95%5%<1%
3.78
4
Michelle Moscon
90W–148L career · 6 lines in 2025
21%79%<1%
3.61
Jennifer Rasmussen
43W–77L career · 3 lines in 2025
21%79%<1%
3.60
4
Amy Johnson
68W–89L career · 3 lines in 2025
23%77%<1%
3.60
Jessica Olsen
72W–87L career · 8 lines in 2025
38%62%<1%
3.54
Shannon Garber
12W–8L career · 6 lines in 2025
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.