Teams

GEPTA/Tri-level/4.0-3.0W/Baeza#1

SouthernNewMexico · 2026 TRI-LEVEL LEAGUE

11 players · average NTRP 3.50 / GEPTA

View scouting list →
Flight standings7 teams · 2026 TRI-LEVEL LEAGUE
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1GEPTA/Tri-level/4.0-3.0W/woo#7000000
2GEPTA/Tri-level/4.0-3.0W/Molina#6000000
3GEPTA/Tri-level/4.0-3.0W/Baeza#1000000
4GEPTA/Tri-level/4.0-3.0W/Caire#2000000
5GEPTA/Tri-level/4.0-3.0W/Cartwright#3000000
6GEPTA/Tri-level/4.0-3.0W/Martinez#5000000
7GEPTA/Tri-level/4.0-3.0W/Colbert#4000000

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 3.30 estimated across 4 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.

3.63
Cindy Karam
usually #2 Doubles 54%, also #1 Doubles 31% · published 4
3.43
BLANCA REYES GAMEZ
usually #1 Doubles 33%, also #2 Singles 25% · published 3.5
3.30
Ana Lucia Sanchez
usually #1 Singles 86%, also #2 Singles 14% · published 3.5
2.85
Ariana Guerrero
usually #2 Doubles 25%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 3
Elsie Villarreal
usually #2 Doubles 73%, also #1 Doubles 18% · published
Felisa Fuentes
usually #1 Doubles 63%, also #3 Doubles 23% · published
Laura Soto
usually #1 Singles 38%, also #2 Doubles 31% · published
Luisa Fernanda Gomez Baca
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
Maria Baeza
usually #1 Doubles 31%, also #2 Doubles 27% · published
Monica Medina
usually #1 Doubles 47%, also #3 Doubles 27% · published
Paulina Caraveo
usually #2 Singles 30%, also #1 Doubles 20% · 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.

Maria Baeza + Felisa Fuentes12355% gamesnot enough data
Monica Medina + Luisa Fernanda Gomez Baca6355% gamesnot enough data
Luisa Fernanda Gomez Baca + Ana Lucia Sanchez3259% gamesnot enough data
Ariana Guerrero + Felisa Fuentes224 matchesnot enough data
Elsie Villarreal + Cindy Karam213 matchesnot enough data
Monica Medina + Felisa Fuentes213 matchesnot enough data
Ariana Guerrero + Maria Baeza303 matchesnot enough data
Cindy Karam + Felisa Fuentes213 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.

4
Cindy Karam
36W–24L career · 13 lines in 2026
17%83%<1%
3.63
3.5
BLANCA REYES GAMEZ
14W–6L career · 11 lines in 2026
<1%69%31%
3.43
3.5
Ana Lucia Sanchez
22W–9L career · 7 lines in 2026
2%91%7%
3.30
3
Ariana Guerrero
30W–19L career · 18 lines in 2026
1%85%14%
2.85
Elsie Villarreal
57W–39L career · 11 lines in 2026
not enough data
Felisa Fuentes
57W–22L career · 30 lines in 2026
not enough data
Laura Soto
40W–31L career · 15 lines in 2026
not enough data
Luisa Fernanda Gomez Baca
45W–31L career · 8 lines in 2026
not enough data
Maria Baeza
58W–35L career · 23 lines in 2026
not enough data
Monica Medina
38W–25L career · 15 lines in 2026
not enough data
Paulina Caraveo
17W–16L career · 9 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.