Teams

Liberty Park Tennis-Knight/Taylor

2023 USTA Adult 18 & Over · 4.0W PM

21 players · average NTRP 3.86 / 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 →
Schedule5 played
2023-05-16Lost 02
L#1 SinglesGabriela Stanifer vs Alyson Ellis1-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesMichelle Maxfield / Alyssa Larson vs Lexie Williams / Michelle Edwards4-6, 6-2, 0-1
2023-05-09Lost 01
L#1 DoublesMisty Morrow / Julie Jones vs Mindy Christofferson / Nicole Miller4-6, 6-4, 0-1
2023-04-25vs Liberty Park Tennis-TieffLost 01
L#2 DoublesKim Cronin / Gabriela Stanifer vs Amy Powell / Regan Tieff4-6, 1-6
2023-04-24Lost 01
L#2 DoublesMisty Morrow / Kathryn Tagge vs Teisa Linscott / Alex Gempeler4-6, 3-6
2023-04-11vs Liberty Park Tennis-WarrenLost 02
L#1 DoublesMisty Morrow / Sandy Adamson vs Sabrena Suite-Mangum / Kristi Warren4-6, 4-6
L#2 DoublesJenny DeWaal / Kim Cronin vs Allison Leishman / Robin Simmons2-6, 4-6
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 4.0W PM 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 3.55 estimated across 13 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.

3.96
Alisa Gardner
usually #1 Singles 83%, also #1 Doubles 17% · published 4
Anne Young
published 4
Gabriela Stanifer
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.75
Amy Earl
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #1 Singles 25% · published 4
3.72
Kim Cronin
usually #2 Doubles 41%, also #1 Doubles 41% · published 4
3.71
Chandi Hurd
usually #2 Singles 46%, also #1 Singles 27% · published 4
3.67
Teri Bishop
usually #3 Doubles 40%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published 4
3.66
Misty Morrow
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.66
Emily Benton
usually #1 Doubles 29%, also #3 Doubles 29% · published 4
3.63
Annette Knight
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published 4
3.38
Michelle Maxfield
usually #2 Doubles 39%, also #1 Doubles 39% · published
3.37
Gretel Sampson
usually #1 Singles 25%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.26
Alena Taylor
usually #3 Doubles 36%, also #2 Doubles 27% · published 3.5
Alyssa Larson
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.19
Kathryn Tagge
usually #2 Singles 42%, also #1 Singles 33% · published
3.16
Manal Hall
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #1 Singles 25% · published 3.5
Jenny DeWaal
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Lisa Stebbing
usually #3 Doubles 30%, also #2 Doubles 30% · published
Natalie Clawson
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
Nicole Cramer
usually #2 Doubles 43%, also #1 Doubles 29% · published
Sandy Adamson
usually #1 Doubles 71%, also #3 Doubles 14% · 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.

Annette Knight + Emily Benton4264% games+15.0% vs expected
Gretel Sampson + Alisa Gardner11366% games+14.1% vs expected
Amy Earl + Kim Cronin4262% games+14.0% vs expected
Amy Earl + Alisa Gardner19369% games+11.7% vs expected
Kim Cronin + Alisa Gardner14068% games+11.4% vs expected
Emily Benton + Alisa Gardner11266% games+9.5% vs expected
Manal Hall + Lisa Stebbing1443% games+8.1% vs expected
Amy Earl + Emily Benton3358% games+7.7% 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
Alisa Gardner
197W–48L career · 6 lines in 2023
<1%63%37%
3.96
4
Anne Young
11W–23L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
4
Gabriela Stanifer
5W–7L career · type S · 2 lines in 2023
not enough data
4
Amy Earl
108W–46L career · 4 lines in 2023
3%95%3%
3.75
4
Kim Cronin
380W–238L career · 27 lines in 2023
5%94%1%
3.72
4
Chandi Hurd
183W–142L career · 11 lines in 2023
6%93%1%
3.71
4
Teri Bishop
181W–151L career · 5 lines in 2023
10%89%<1%
3.67
4
Misty Morrow
79W–60L career · 3 lines in 2023
10%89%<1%
3.66
4
Emily Benton
148W–120L career · 6 lines in 2023
11%89%<1%
3.66
4
Annette Knight
58W–66L career · 10 lines in 2023
15%84%<1%
3.63
Michelle Maxfield
204W–139L career · 13 lines in 2023
82%18%<1%
3.38
3.5
Gretel Sampson
200W–198L career · 17 lines in 2023
<1%85%15%
3.37
3.5
Alena Taylor
174W–200L career · 11 lines in 2023
2%94%3%
3.26
3.5
Alyssa Larson
27W–58L career · 1 line in 2023
not enough data
Kathryn Tagge
51W–101L career · 12 lines in 2023
7%92%1%
3.19
3.5
Manal Hall
111W–167L career · 8 lines in 2023
11%89%<1%
3.16
Jenny DeWaal
49W–55L career · 1 line in 2023
not enough data
Lisa Stebbing
95W–57L career · 10 lines in 2023
not enough data
Natalie Clawson
42W–26L career · 2 lines in 2023
not enough data
Nicole Cramer
19W–33L career · 7 lines in 2023
not enough data
Sandy Adamson
33W–59L career · 7 lines in 2023
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.