Teams

CACM PINK

2024 TRIO - DEN · WOMEN 3.5 - TRIO

7 players · average NTRP 3.33 / 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 →
Schedule5 played
2024-05-05vs EM REDLost 02
L#1 DoublesSarah Kopp / Lynn Kitt vs Melissa Zink / Ashley Wolfe2-6, 3-6
L#1 SinglesHelene Grall-Johnson vs Jean Steimel4-6, 4-6
2024-04-27vs CACM REDWon 21
W#1 DoublesTiffany Sandusky / Lynn Kitt vs Mary Deluccia / Erica Bissette6-3, 6-2
L#1 SinglesHelene Grall-Johnson vs Mary Hogan4-6, 1-1
W#2 DoublesSarah Kopp / Amanda Sheehan vs Kathy Bailey / Juli Reiakvam5-7, 6-2, 1-0
2024-04-20vs SS-H REDSplit 11
W#1 DoublesSarah Kopp / Helene Grall-Johnson vs Jane Braaten / Kristin Alexander3-6, 6-0, 1-0
L#2 DoublesGeorgia Gallagher / Camille Ford vs Diana Nice / Kathryn Ross7-6, 4-6, 1-0
2024-04-06vs LTFC GREENSplit 11
W#1 DoublesSarah Kopp / Lynn Kitt vs Erin Clark / Audrey Moskowitz6-4, 2-6, 1-0
L#1 SinglesGeorgia Gallagher vs Janet Hill2-6, 1-6
2024-03-30vs GCC REDSplit 11
L#1 DoublesLynn Kitt / Helene Grall-Johnson vs Emer Dempsey / Hilary McDonald4-6, 4-6
W#2 DoublesGeorgia Gallagher / Tiffany Sandusky vs Tricia Blechman / Allison Kaelberer7-5, 6-0
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 standings for WOMEN 3.5 - TRIO 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 3.06 estimated across 7 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.

3.26
Tiffany Sandusky
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.21
Georgia Gallagher
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Singles 33% · published 3.5
3.21
Sarah Kopp
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.17
Lynn Kitt
published
2.94
Helene Grall-Johnson
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 50% · published 3.5
2.88
Camille Ford
published 3
2.76
Amanda Sheehan
published 3
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.

Tiffany Sandusky + Sarah Kopp7847% games+6.1% vs expected
Lynn Kitt + Sarah Kopp4546% games−1.4% vs expected
Tiffany Sandusky + Lynn Kitt3645% games−7.2% vs expected
Helene Grall-Johnson + Sarah Kopp123 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.

3.5
Tiffany Sandusky
92W–79L career · 2 lines in 2024
3%93%4%
3.26
3.5
Georgia Gallagher
61W–57L career · 3 lines in 2024
6%92%2%
3.21
3.5
Sarah Kopp
45W–69L career · 4 lines in 2024
7%91%2%
3.21
Lynn Kitt
13W–25L career · no lines in 2024
11%88%1%
3.17
3.5
Helene Grall-Johnson
31W–83L career · type A · 4 lines in 2024
65%35%<1%
2.94
3
Camille Ford
24W–16L career · no lines in 2024
<1%80%19%
2.88
3
Amanda Sheehan
24W–20L career · no lines in 2024
3%93%4%
2.76

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.