Teams

Cottonwood Club-Nielsen/Barber

2025 USTA Adult 18 & Over · 3.0W PM

17 players · average NTRP 3.08 / 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 →
Schedule7 played
2025-06-02vs Sunpro-Waite/CollinsWon 10
W#2 DoublesMikelle Moore / Melissa Child vs Melissa Reoch / Karen Murray6-2, 6-3
2025-05-19vs Liberty Park Tennis-Muniz/HarveyLost 01
L#3 DoublesStephanie Gelman / Kylee Bryson vs Jean Whitlock / Stephanie Favila3-6, 4-6
2025-05-12vs Park City MARC-JacobsSplit 11
W#1 DoublesMikelle Moore / Melissa Child vs Sheri Jacobs / Lynette Maloney1-6, 6-3, 1-0
L#2 DoublesStephanie Gelman / Brittany Pope vs Melanie Schlachter / Lisa Hauser2-6, 2-6
2025-05-10vs Sports Mall-Eckert/MortensenSplit 11
W#1 DoublesMikelle Moore / Melissa Child vs Annie Mortensen / Jessica Eckert6-3, 6-2
L#3 DoublesAlison Barber / Stephanie Gelman vs Heather Callister / Summer Ellis2-6, 4-6
2025-05-05vs Salt Lake Tennis-BaynaWon 10
W#2 DoublesMikelle Moore / Kristina Maljovec vs Kalaiselvi Seetharaman / KayeLynn BASTIAN6-4, 4-6, 1-0
2025-04-19vs Wasatch Hills-Berceau/HepperlyWon 10
W#1 DoublesMikelle Moore / Melissa Child vs Lori Heimuli / Mary Sorensen6-3, 5-7, 1-0
2025-04-14vs Utah/Kesler/18&Over3.0WLost 01
L#3 DoublesStephanie Gelman / Kylee Bryson vs Alisa Kesler / Lori Prince Hagood0-6, 2-6
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 standings5 teams · 3.0W PM
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Utah/Kesler/18&Over3.0W90311432327
2Cottonwood Club-Nielsen/Barber72291637347
3Liberty Park Tennis-Muniz/Harvey54242148401
4Sports Mall-Eckert/Mortensen45232248381
5Wasatch Hills-Berceau/Hepperly36232249378

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 2.77 estimated across 14 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.

3.25
Jane Woolley
usually #1 Doubles 39%, also #2 Doubles 22% · published
3.24
Mary Diaz Gordon
usually #1 Singles 42%, also #2 Singles 25% · published 3.5
3.04
Ally Lyle
usually #2 Singles 83%, also #3 Doubles 17% · published 3
3.01
Jamuna Nielsen
usually #2 Doubles 24%, also #2 Singles 24% · published 3.5
2.91
Amanda Krejci
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 13% · published 3
2.88
Melissa Child
usually #1 Doubles 43%, also #2 Doubles 29% · published 3
2.83
Brittany Pope
usually #1 Doubles 40%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published 3
Alison Barber
published 3
Jane Chandramouli
usually #1 Doubles 38%, also #2 Singles 25% · published 3
2.69
Mikelle Moore
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published 3
2.63
Sara Turley
usually #2 Doubles 57%, also #3 Doubles 29% · published 3
2.60
Kristina Maljovec
usually #2 Singles 36%, also #2 Doubles 36% · published 3
2.50
Kristin Hutchins
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.49
Holly Ricker
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.42
Stephanie Gelman
usually #3 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
2.34
Kylee Bryson
usually #3 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published
Tam Pham
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.

Jane Chandramouli + Jane Woolley5166% games+23.9% vs expected
Alison Barber + Mary Diaz Gordon3354% games+12.2% vs expected
Holly Ricker + Mary Diaz Gordon12464% games+11.6% vs expected
Amanda Krejci + Jane Woolley12559% games+10.4% vs expected
Jamuna Nielsen + Mary Diaz Gordon10360% games+9.3% vs expected
Mary Diaz Gordon + Jane Woolley6260% games+6.2% vs expected
Alison Barber + Jamuna Nielsen5450% games+5.7% vs expected
Melissa Child + Sara Turley3256% games+4.0% 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.

Jane Woolley
77W–34L career · 22 lines in 2025
4%93%4%
3.25
3.5
Mary Diaz Gordon
108W–65L career · 22 lines in 2025
4%93%3%
3.24
3
Ally Lyle
43W–20L career · 6 lines in 2025
<1%39%61%
3.04
3.5
Jamuna Nielsen
126W–120L career · 22 lines in 2025
48%52%<1%
3.01
3
Amanda Krejci
62W–55L career · 8 lines in 2025
<1%73%27%
2.91
3
Melissa Child
73W–73L career · 7 lines in 2025
<1%81%19%
2.88
3
Brittany Pope
36W–29L career · 5 lines in 2025
1%88%11%
2.83
3
Alison Barber
16W–23L career · type A · no lines in 2025
not enough data
3
Jane Chandramouli
60W–125L career · 8 lines in 2025
not enough data
3
Mikelle Moore
46W–52L career · 5 lines in 2025
9%90%1%
2.69
3
Sara Turley
45W–58L career · 7 lines in 2025
17%82%<1%
2.63
3
Kristina Maljovec
17W–16L career · 11 lines in 2025
25%75%<1%
2.60
Kristin Hutchins
17W–24L career · 3 lines in 2025
51%49%<1%
2.50
3
Holly Ricker
57W–151L career · type A · 6 lines in 2025
53%47%<1%
2.49
Stephanie Gelman
31W–58L career · 4 lines in 2025
71%29%<1%
2.42
Kylee Bryson
21W–37L career · 5 lines in 2025
88%12%<1%
2.34
Tam Pham
4W–3L career · no 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.