Teams

PRC GREEN

2024 TRIO - DEN · WOMEN 3.0 - TRIO

10 players · average NTRP 2.93 / 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 →
Schedule5 played
2024-04-27vs WC GREENWon 20
W#1 DoublesSharon Kisch / Amber Harris vs Laura Ream / SUSAN MORAVEK6-4, 6-0
W#1 SinglesCeleste Gardner vs Lisa Nelson6-7, 6-2, 1-0
2024-04-20vs HRCA-S NAVYWon 20
W#1 DoublesSharon Kisch / Amber Harris vs Becki Jernigan / Tamiko Norris6-4, 6-3
W#2 DoublesTeresa Hahn / Lori Lee vs Susan Kim / Soyon Bueno6-7, 6-1, 1-0
2024-04-13vs SS-H ORANGEWon 20
W#1 SinglesCeleste Gardner vs Whitney Baylor7-5, 6-2
W#2 DoublesTeresa Hahn / Denise Coleman vs Jennifer Lobb / Phuong Banh6-4, 7-5
2024-04-13vs LTFC NAVYWon 10
W#1 DoublesAmber Harris / Teresa Hahn vs Molly Robbins / Johanna Tiwari6-1, 7-5
2024-03-30vs PRKR ORANGEWon 20
W#1 SinglesCeleste Gardner vs Susan Goldman6-1, 4-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesSharon Kisch / Sarah Hughes vs Kristen Warnick / Erika Fox6-3, 4-6, 1-0
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 - TRIO 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 2.85 estimated across 8 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.

2.98
Amber Harris
published 3
2.97
Emily Carter
published
2.97
Sarah Hughes
published
2.94
Amy Walsh
published 3
2.81
Teresa Hahn
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.80
Sharon Kisch
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3
Denise Coleman
published 3
2.69
Celeste Gardner
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 3
2.63
Lori Lee
published
Candace Sotwick
published 2.5
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.

Sarah Hughes + Amber Harris25663% games+4.6% vs expected
Celeste Gardner + Lori Lee8755% games+3.2% vs expected
Sharon Kisch + Celeste Gardner123 matchesnot enough data
Celeste Gardner + Amber Harris303 matchesnot enough data
Emily Carter + Amber Harris123 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
Amber Harris
41W–11L career · no lines in 2024
<1%55%45%
2.98
Emily Carter
30W–21L career · no lines in 2024
<1%58%42%
2.97
Sarah Hughes
28W–8L career · no lines in 2024
<1%59%41%
2.97
3
Amy Walsh
13W–5L career · no lines in 2024
<1%68%32%
2.94
3
Teresa Hahn
35W–27L career · 3 lines in 2024
1%90%8%
2.81
3
Sharon Kisch
179W–105L career · 3 lines in 2024
2%91%8%
2.80
3
Denise Coleman
2W–2L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
3
Celeste Gardner
87W–86L career · 3 lines in 2024
9%89%1%
2.69
Lori Lee
35W–25L career · no lines in 2024
17%82%<1%
2.63
2.5
Candace Sotwick
1W–7L career · no lines in 2024
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.