Teams

Sunpro-Belliston/Anderson

2022 Fall Indoor League-Weekday · 3.0W

13 players · average NTRP 3.15 / UTAH

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2022-12-14vs Sports Mall-Majors/JensenLost 12
L#1 Female DoublesCyndi Madsen / Cherylin Winkel vs Lisa Beames / Trisha Cutrer3-6, 1-6
W#1 Female SinglesShannon Fredericks vs N/A6-0, 6-0
L#2 Female DoublesCarrie Jensen / Liz Rowley vs Cosette Tregeagle / Camille Weaver4-6, 2-5
2022-12-07vs Provo High School-PageSplit 11
W#1 Female DoublesGina Anderson / Raquel Moss vs Elizabeth Lohner / Maria Call7-6, 1-0
L#2 Female DoublesLaRicia Belliston / Cherylin Winkel vs Lanie Wilkinson / Lisa Michie2-6, 3-6
2022-11-30Won 30
W#1 Female DoublesLiz Rowley / Cherylin Winkel vs Katie Winson / Kadee Wolfgram5-7, 3-0, 1-0
W#1 Female SinglesShannon Fredericks vs Nooshin Prasthofer6-3, 5-4
W#2 Female DoublesCarrie Jensen / Raquel Moss vs Diane Poole / Mithona Nielsen6-3, 5-2
2022-11-16vs Ivory Ridge-McCord/WilyLost 02
L#1 Female SinglesLiz Rowley vs Heidi Beckstead7-6, 1-2, 0-1
L#2 Female DoublesLaRicia Belliston / Gina Anderson vs Penny McCord / Tiffany Riley3-6, 0-6
2022-11-10vs Wasatch Rec Center-Davis/McBrideWon 20
W#1 Female DoublesRaquel Moss / LaRicia Belliston vs Jocelyn Bennion / Tracy Davis6-4, 5-3
W#2 Female DoublesGina Anderson / Shannon Fredericks vs Jennifer Davies / Julie Gabler6-4, 7-5
2022-11-02vs Red Ledges-Overton/WoodWon 31
W#1 Female DoublesGina Anderson / Cherylin Winkel vs Jen Dagley / Jennifer Stone4-6, 6-5, 1-0
W#1 Female SinglesShannon Fredericks vs Megan Overton6-3, 6-4
L#2 Female DoublesCarrie Jensen / Liz Rowley vs Shana Wood / Carly Johnston7-5, 2-4, 0-1
W#3 Female DoublesLaRicia Belliston / Raquel Moss vs Melissa Smith / Giuliana Willis6-4, 6-3
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 standings15 teams · 3.0W
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Ace Athletics-Bastian5119511139
2Sports Mall-Majors/Jensen5118613140
3Sports Mall-Shoff/Stebbing5118614139
4Park City MARC-Byrne5117717157
5Ivory Ridge-McCord/Wily5116819164
6Sunpro-Belliston/Anderson4215921184
7Ogden-Cox/Johnstun42131124179
8Sports Mall-Lyon/George33131125191
9Provo High School-Page33121228200
10Red Ledges-Overton/Wood33131128196
11Cottonwood Club-Wolfgram/Winson33111328197
12Sunpro-Donaldson/Cardall1571736228
13Sports Mall-Griffiths1561837221
14RISE AC-Orme1561838234
15Wasatch Rec Center-Davis/McBride0651940255

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 2.96 estimated across 9 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.

3.62
Jill Marsh
published
3.21
Liz Rowley
usually #2 Female Doubles 50%, also #1 Female Singles 25% · published 3.5
3.15
Shannon Fredericks
usually #1 Female Singles 75%, also #2 Female Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.03
Cherylin Winkel
usually #1 Female Doubles 75%, also #2 Female Doubles 25% · published 3.5
2.87
Raquel Moss
usually #1 Female Doubles 50%, also #3 Female Doubles 25% · published 3
2.83
Carrie Jensen
published 3
2.79
Cyndi Madsen
usually #1 Female Doubles 67%, also #1 Female Singles 33% · published 3
Gina Anderson
published 3
2.57
2.57
LaRicia Belliston
usually #2 Female Doubles 50%, also #3 Female Doubles 25% · published 3
Kim Ward
published
Mandy Petersen
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.

Liz Rowley + Mandy Petersen6267% games+10.6% vs expected
Liz Rowley + Jill Marsh16265% games+8.5% vs expected
LaRicia Belliston + Shannon Fredericks4163% games+7.6% vs expected
Cyndi Madsen + Gina Anderson5551% games+6.8% vs expected
Laura Wills-Mitchell + Beatriz Velazquez6457% games+5.8% vs expected
Beatriz Velazquez + Jill Marsh7163% games+5.4% vs expected
Cyndi Madsen + Cherylin Winkel13859% games+5.0% vs expected
Carrie Jensen + Cherylin Winkel161056% games+4.5% 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.

Jill Marsh
100W–41L career · no lines in 2022
17%82%<1%
3.62
3.5
Liz Rowley
98W–66L career · 4 lines in 2022
5%93%1%
3.21
3.5
Shannon Fredericks
89W–63L career · 4 lines in 2022
13%86%<1%
3.15
3.5
Cherylin Winkel
112W–142L career · 4 lines in 2022
42%58%<1%
3.03
3
Raquel Moss
123W–111L career · 4 lines in 2022
<1%85%15%
2.87
3
Carrie Jensen
138W–169L career · no lines in 2022
1%90%9%
2.83
3
Cyndi Madsen
120W–134L career · 3 lines in 2022
1%93%6%
2.79
3
Beatriz Velazquez
58W–39L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
3
Gina Anderson
46W–64L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
3
Laura Wills-Mitchell
74W–104L career · no lines in 2022
29%71%<1%
2.57
3
LaRicia Belliston
85W–115L career · 4 lines in 2022
30%70%<1%
2.57
Kim Ward
2W–23L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Mandy Petersen
18W–14L career · no 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.