Teams

Cottonwood Club-Barber

2025 USTA Adult 40 & Over · 3.0W PM

17 players · average NTRP 3.00 / 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
2025-08-04vs Liberty Park-KeslerLost 02
L#1 DoublesStephanie Gelman / Magdalena Kovacsovics vs Bernadette Muniz / Kyoko Jensen2-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesRobin Asmar / Kristin Hutchins vs Alisa Kesler / Jamie Harris1-6, 0-6
2025-07-21vs Salt Lake Tennis-Court QueensLost 02
L#1 DoublesMagdalena Kovacsovics / Stephanie Gelman vs Candace Haroldsen / Elaine Day3-6, 5-7
L#2 DoublesBrittany Pope / Kristin Hutchins vs Kelly Singer / Chrissy Oliveros1-6, 3-6
2025-07-14vs Park City MARC-JacobsLost 02
L#1 DoublesStephanie Gelman / Magdalena Kovacsovics vs Kelly Krueger / Melanie Schlachter7-5, 2-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesKristin Hutchins / Kristin Rocke vs Patricia Moran / Nancy Holloway3-6, 4-6
2025-06-30vs SunPro-Reoch/MurrayWon 10
W#2 DoublesRobin Asmar / Stephanie Gelman vs Susan Alleman / Megumi Matsuzawa6-2, 6-3
2025-06-28vs Salt Lake Tennis-BaynaLost 01
L#3 DoublesKylee Bryson / Kristin Hutchins vs Delia Bayna / Shannon Halverson1-6, 3-6
2025-06-23vs Wasatch Hills - Volley LlamasLost 01
L#2 DoublesRobin Asmar / Kristin Hutchins vs Lynn Hepperly / Linda Lasater6-7, 2-6
2025-06-16vs Liberty Park-KeslerLost 01
L#3 DoublesStephanie Gelman / Kristin Hutchins vs LISA PERMENTER / Wendy Conrad5-7, 1-6
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
1Salt Lake Tennis-Court Queens62181434283
2Wasatch Hills - Volley Llamas44171535299
3Park City MARC-Jacobs44161636288
4SunPro-Reoch/Murray35161638303
5Cottonwood Club-Barber1752754340

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 2.73 estimated across 12 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 Singles 50%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published
3.24
Mary Diaz Gordon
usually #2 Doubles 33%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.04
Ally Lyle
usually #1 Singles 75%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 3
2.91
Amanda Krejci
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 30% · published 3
2.88
Melissa Child
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 3
2.83
Brittany Pope
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3
Alison Barber
published 3
Jane Chandramouli
usually #3 Doubles 56%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.69
Mikelle Moore
usually #3 Doubles 38%, also #1 Singles 38% · published 3
2.50
Kristin Hutchins
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
2.49
Holly Ricker
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 17% · published 3
2.42
Stephanie Gelman
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #3 Doubles 20% · published
2.34
Kylee Bryson
usually #2 Doubles 57%, also #3 Doubles 43% · published
2.17
Kristin Rocke
usually #1 Doubles 40%, also #3 Doubles 40% · published 2.5
Magdalena Kovacsovics
usually #1 Doubles 63%, also #2 Doubles 38% · published
Robin Asmar
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 22% · 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
Mary Diaz Gordon + Jane Woolley6260% games+6.2% vs expected
Mikelle Moore + Melissa Child13952% games+2.5% vs expected
Jane Chandramouli + Magdalena Kovacsovics5947% games+0.6% vs expected
Melissa Child + Amanda Krejci3648% games−2.9% 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 · 4 lines in 2025
4%93%4%
3.25
3.5
Mary Diaz Gordon
108W–65L career · 12 lines in 2025
4%93%3%
3.24
3
Ally Lyle
43W–20L career · 4 lines in 2025
<1%39%61%
3.04
3
Amanda Krejci
62W–55L career · 10 lines in 2025
<1%73%27%
2.91
3
Melissa Child
73W–73L career · 8 lines in 2025
<1%81%19%
2.88
3
Brittany Pope
36W–29L career · 6 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 · 9 lines in 2025
not enough data
3
Mikelle Moore
46W–52L career · 8 lines in 2025
9%90%1%
2.69
Kristin Hutchins
17W–24L career · 6 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 · 5 lines in 2025
71%29%<1%
2.42
Kylee Bryson
21W–37L career · 7 lines in 2025
88%12%<1%
2.34
2.5
Kristin Rocke
22W–44L career · 5 lines in 2025
0%99%1%
2.17
Magdalena Kovacsovics
50W–82L career · 8 lines in 2025
not enough data
Robin Asmar
25W–65L career · 9 lines in 2025
not enough data
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.