Teams

Cottonwood Club-Warren

2023 USTA Adult 18 & Over · 4.0W PM

23 players · average NTRP 4.04 / 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 →
Schedule6 played
2023-06-03Lost 01
L#3 DoublesCelia Steele / Kathia Dang vs Mindy Christensen / Bessy Nielson3-6, 4-6
2023-05-30Won 10
W#3 DoublesHolli Turner / Janelle Pulley vs Kim Cronin / Michelle Maxfield6-3, 6-2
2023-05-23Lost 01
L#2 DoublesJanelle Pulley / Janice Smith vs Olivia Hu / Adrienne Davis3-6, 3-6
2023-05-09Lost 01
L#3 DoublesCelia Steele / Kathia Dang vs Melissa Despain / Staci McCubbins4-6, 0-6
2023-04-29vs Sunpro-Blackhurst/MayberryWon 10
W#1 DoublesJanelle Pulley / Janice Smith vs Pam Ollivier / Karen Christensen6-3, 6-7, 1-0
2023-04-11Won 10
W#2 DoublesCarole Sharp / Janelle Pulley vs Joanna Heiden / Julie Labrum6-2, 6-2
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 3.65 estimated across 17 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.

4.31
Whitney Fautin
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #1 Singles 33% · published 4.5
3.99
Kathy Miller-Rees
usually #2 Doubles 56%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 4.5
3.77
Alli Gardner
usually #3 Doubles 83%, also #1 Singles 17% · published 4
Carole Sharp
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.71
Christine Littleford
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published 4
3.70
Lori Briesacher
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.69
Dorene Sambado
usually #1 Singles 55%, also #2 Singles 46% · published 4
3.69
Lois Peterson
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
3.66
Lee Chase
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published
3.66
Lynn Russo
usually #2 Doubles 57%, also #1 Singles 14% · published
3.65
Lisa Hakes
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 17% · published 4
3.62
Holli Turner
usually #2 Doubles 56%, also #3 Doubles 22% · published 4
3.61
Janelle Pulley
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 4
3.54
Donna Pizza
usually #1 Doubles 83%, also #2 Doubles 17% · published 4
3.46
Simone McInnis
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.45
Janice Smith
usually #3 Doubles 43%, also #1 Doubles 29% · published
3.44
Andrea Kehl
usually #2 Doubles 43%, also #1 Doubles 43% · published 4
3.13
Celia Steele
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
Kathia Dang
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Kim Warren
usually #2 Doubles 80%, also #1 Doubles 20% · published
Krista Thompson
published
Marce Miles
usually #1 Singles 67%, also #2 Singles 33% · published
Sara Green
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.

Lee Chase + Kathy Miller-Rees4264% games+9.4% vs expected
Janelle Pulley + Lori Briesacher4157% games+6.9% vs expected
Alli Gardner + Kathy Miller-Rees5158% games+6.4% vs expected
Alli Gardner + Whitney Fautin9163% games+5.1% vs expected
Carole Sharp + Janice Smith21563% games+4.7% vs expected
Lori Briesacher + Celia Steele1448% games+4.6% vs expected
Andrea Kehl + Kathy Miller-Rees10754% games+3.9% vs expected
Christine Littleford + Lori Briesacher4260% games+3.2% 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.

4.5
Whitney Fautin
191W–44L career · 12 lines in 2023
1%92%7%
4.31
4.5
Kathy Miller-Rees
150W–147L career · 9 lines in 2023
53%47%<1%
3.99
4
Alli Gardner
113W–48L career · 6 lines in 2023
2%94%4%
3.77
4
Carole Sharp
95W–47L career · 1 line in 2023
not enough data
4
Christine Littleford
116W–72L career · 5 lines in 2023
5%94%1%
3.71
4
Lori Briesacher
141W–98L career · 4 lines in 2023
6%93%1%
3.70
4
Dorene Sambado
102W–113L career · 11 lines in 2023
7%92%1%
3.69
Lois Peterson
49W–45L career · 4 lines in 2023
7%92%1%
3.69
Lee Chase
49W–33L career · 4 lines in 2023
11%89%<1%
3.66
Lynn Russo
139W–124L career · 7 lines in 2023
11%89%<1%
3.66
4
Lisa Hakes
83W–45L career · 6 lines in 2023
13%87%<1%
3.65
4
Holli Turner
82W–68L career · 9 lines in 2023
18%82%<1%
3.62
4
Janelle Pulley
75W–55L career · 4 lines in 2023
19%81%<1%
3.61
4
Donna Pizza
166W–106L career · 6 lines in 2023
39%61%<1%
3.54
4
Simone McInnis
99W–76L career · 6 lines in 2023
63%37%<1%
3.46
Janice Smith
126W–62L career · 7 lines in 2023
66%34%<1%
3.45
4
Andrea Kehl
125W–86L career · 7 lines in 2023
66%34%<1%
3.44
3.5
Celia Steele
47W–80L career · 3 lines in 2023
16%83%<1%
3.13
Kathia Dang
1W–6L career · 2 lines in 2023
not enough data
Kim Warren
51W–63L career · 5 lines in 2023
not enough data
Krista Thompson
55W–11L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Marce Miles
14W–17L career · 3 lines in 2023
not enough data
Sara Green
25W–70L career · no 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.