Teams

Sports Mall-Finlay

2024 USTA Adult 18 & Over · 3.5W PM

15 players · average NTRP 3.44 / 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 →

Flight standings for 3.5W 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 3.28 estimated across 11 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.

3.57
Jennifer Sampson
usually #1 Singles 56%, also #2 Singles 39% · published 4
3.53
Britany Egan
usually #1 Singles 39%, also #2 Singles 39% · published 3.5
3.46
Tiffany Riley
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 17% · published
3.32
Debra Knowlton
usually #3 Doubles 42%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.26
Lora Lyon
usually #3 Doubles 31%, also #2 Singles 23% · published
3.25
Brenda Green
usually #2 Doubles 33%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.24
Heather Sliwa
usually #2 Doubles 43%, also #3 Doubles 29% · published
3.21
Yoko Walljasper
usually #1 Doubles 40%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published 3.5
3.14
Claudine Finlay
usually #2 Doubles 33%, also #2 Singles 25% · published 3.5
3.09
Danna Miller
usually #2 Doubles 29%, also #1 Doubles 29% · published 3.5
3.03
Rebecca England
usually #2 Singles 67%, also #3 Doubles 17% · published
Emily Peterson
usually #3 Doubles 78%, also #1 Doubles 22% · published 3
Karlene Johnston
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3
Lexie Williams
published
Shauna Lake
usually #1 Doubles 40%, also #2 Doubles 30% · 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.

Emily Peterson + Karlene Johnston4249% games+9.6% vs expected
Debra Knowlton + Britany Egan6359% games+5.1% vs expected
Brenda Green + Lora Lyon141052% games+4.9% vs expected
Emily Peterson + Lora Lyon7554% games+4.0% vs expected
Claudine Finlay + Brenda Green9162% games+3.9% vs expected
Shauna Lake + Tiffany Riley4155% games+2.9% vs expected
Emily Peterson + Rebecca England101049% games+2.6% vs expected
Jennifer Sampson + Debra Knowlton15658% games+2.5% 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
Jennifer Sampson
209W–141L career · 18 lines in 2024
30%70%<1%
3.57
3.5
Britany Egan
198W–108L career · type A · 13 lines in 2024
<1%43%57%
3.53
Tiffany Riley
103W–90L career · 6 lines in 2024
<1%63%37%
3.46
3.5
Debra Knowlton
170W–137L career · 12 lines in 2024
1%89%10%
3.32
Lora Lyon
101W–81L career · 12 lines in 2024
3%93%4%
3.26
3.5
Brenda Green
125W–67L career · 9 lines in 2024
3%93%4%
3.25
Heather Sliwa
82W–61L career · 7 lines in 2024
5%92%3%
3.24
3.5
Yoko Walljasper
308W–196L career · 10 lines in 2024
7%91%2%
3.21
3.5
Claudine Finlay
195W–193L career · 11 lines in 2024
16%83%<1%
3.14
3.5
Danna Miller
108W–117L career · 7 lines in 2024
26%74%<1%
3.09
Rebecca England
109W–96L career · 6 lines in 2024
40%60%<1%
3.03
3
Emily Peterson
58W–77L career · 9 lines in 2024
not enough data
3
Karlene Johnston
131W–109L career · 8 lines in 2024
not enough data
Lexie Williams
34W–9L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
Shauna Lake
134W–131L career · 10 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.