Teams

GEPTA/Tri-Level/3.0-4.0W/Gabalindo

SouthernNewMexico · 2025 TRI-LEVEL LEAGUE

12 players · average NTRP 3.12 / GEPTA

View scouting list →
Schedule
Flight standings8 teams · 2025 TRI-LEVEL LEAGUE
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1GEPTA/Tri-Level/3.0-4.0W/Colbert5214715175
2GEPTA/Cartwright/Trilevel/4.0-3.0W5214719191
3GEPTA/Tri-level/3.0-4.0W/Castaneda5212922176
4GEPTA/Tri-Level/3.0-4.0W/Molina4314716146
5GEPTA/Tri-Level/3.0-4.0W/Gabalindo43111023185
6GEPTA/Tri-Level/3.0-4.0W/Woo4391231222
7GEPTA/Tri-level/3.0-4.0W/Huft1651634228
8GEPTA/Tri-Level/3.0-4.0W/Garcia0751636235

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 2.88 estimated across 3 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.

Allison Furman
usually #2 Doubles 33%, also #1 Singles 33% · published 3.5
2.92
Ana Gabilondo
usually #2 Doubles 30%, also #1 Singles 25% · published 3
2.86
Diana Cardiel
usually #3 Doubles 31%, also #1 Singles 31% · published 3
2.85
Ariana Guerrero
usually #1 Doubles 47%, also #3 Doubles 35% · published 3
Elsie Villarreal
usually #2 Doubles 58%, also #1 Doubles 27% · published
Erika Avila
usually #1 Singles 37%, also #2 Singles 26% · published
Jessica Porras
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #1 Singles 25% · published
Leslie Zaragoza
usually #1 Doubles 29%, also #2 Singles 29% · published
Maria Julieta Hall-Ochoa
usually #2 Doubles 55%, also #3 Doubles 32% · published
Patricia Alvarez
usually #3 Doubles 47%, also #1 Doubles 29% · published
Renee Aguilar
usually #2 Doubles 38%, also #1 Doubles 31% · published
Stephanie Zaragoza
usually #1 Doubles 71%, also #2 Singles 12% · 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.

Patricia Alvarez + Stephanie Zaragoza3262% gamesnot enough data
Leslie Zaragoza + Erika Avila4153% gamesnot enough data
Maria Julieta Hall-Ochoa + Elsie Villarreal134 matchesnot enough data
Elsie Villarreal + Leslie Zaragoza314 matchesnot enough data
Ariana Guerrero + Renee Aguilar134 matchesnot enough data
Diana Cardiel + Ariana Guerrero123 matchesnot enough data
Jessica Porras + Stephanie Zaragoza213 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.

3.5
Allison Furman
31W–21L career · 6 lines in 2025
not enough data
3
Ana Gabilondo
28W–28L career · 17 lines in 2025
<1%72%28%
2.92
3
Diana Cardiel
36W–56L career · 27 lines in 2025
<1%83%16%
2.86
3
Ariana Guerrero
30W–19L career · 16 lines in 2025
1%85%14%
2.85
Elsie Villarreal
57W–39L career · 26 lines in 2025
not enough data
Erika Avila
72W–37L career · 27 lines in 2025
not enough data
Jessica Porras
22W–8L career · 4 lines in 2025
not enough data
Leslie Zaragoza
48W–48L career · 17 lines in 2025
not enough data
Maria Julieta Hall-Ochoa
67W–64L career · 31 lines in 2025
not enough data
Patricia Alvarez
83W–75L career · 17 lines in 2025
not enough data
Renee Aguilar
36W–19L career · 16 lines in 2025
not enough data
Stephanie Zaragoza
71W–61L career · 17 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.