Teams

RHCC GREEN

2023 CTA WOMEN'S SUMMER DAYTIME - DEN · WOMEN 3.0 - SUMMER DAYTIME

8 players · average NTRP 3.20 / COLORADO

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
2023-08-09vs KC-RH PINKWon 10
W#1 DoublesJessica Tsuo / Jennifer Curtis-Jones vs Erica Smith / Danielle Steadman4-6, 6-4, 1-0
2023-08-02vs NJ BLUEWon 10
W#2 DoublesBriana Jackson / Jennifer Curtis-Jones vs Heather Young / Rachel Eng6-1, 6-1
2023-07-26vs HIW MAROONWon 20
W#1 DoublesKari Eckert / Jennifer Curtis-Jones vs Mikell Howington / Mary Tribby7-6, 5-7, 1-0
W#1 SinglesCarla Grumann vs Amy Fletcher6-1, 6-1
2023-07-19vs KC-RH REDSplit 11
W#1 DoublesTerri Lombardi / Jennifer Curtis-Jones vs Sarah Carlson / Rachel Osborne6-3, 6-2
L#1 SinglesCarla Grumann vs Lori Galyk3-6, 0-6
2023-07-12vs CCC REDWon 20
W#1 SinglesCarla Grumann vs Melissa Penza6-2, 4-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesAbbey Wood / Kari Eckert vs Leah Sherwood / Janette Wenger6-4, 2-6, 1-0
2023-07-05vs NJ GREENLost 01
L#1 DoublesKari Eckert / Abbey Wood vs Tara Hammar / Mollie Toth6-3, 1-6, 0-1
2023-06-28vs SS-HP BLUELost 01
L#2 DoublesCarla Grumann / Briana Jackson vs Gabriela Cerny / Mikelle Smith2-6, 0-6
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 WOMEN 3.0 - SUMMER DAYTIME 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 3.05 estimated across 7 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.

3.93
Briana Jackson
published 4
3.52
Jessica Tsuo
published
2.90
Abbey Wood
published 3
2.89
Carla Grumann
usually #1 Singles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3
2.81
Jennifer Curtis-Jones
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3
2.75
Terri Lombardi
published
2.57
Kari Eckert
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3
Maria Lucas
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.

Terri Lombardi + Jennifer Curtis-Jones5357% games+4.1% vs expected
Carla Grumann + Jennifer Curtis-Jones4451% games+1.6% vs expected
Kari Eckert + Jennifer Curtis-Jones6846% gamesnot 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.

4
Briana Jackson
18W–6L career · no lines in 2023
<1%70%30%
3.93
Jessica Tsuo
23W–8L career · no lines in 2023
46%54%<1%
3.52
3
Abbey Wood
20W–8L career · no lines in 2023
<1%76%24%
2.90
3
Carla Grumann
84W–68L career · 4 lines in 2023
<1%78%22%
2.89
3
Jennifer Curtis-Jones
106W–61L career · 4 lines in 2023
1%90%8%
2.81
Terri Lombardi
20W–7L career · no lines in 2023
4%93%4%
2.75
3
Kari Eckert
64W–87L career · 3 lines in 2023
31%69%<1%
2.57
Maria Lucas
12W–6L 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.