Teams

Cottonwood Club-Wolfgram/Winson

2022 Fall Indoor League-Weekday · 3.0W

18 players · average NTRP 3.31 / UTAH

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2022-12-14vs Red Ledges-Overton/WoodLost 01
L#2 Female DoublesKadee Wolfgram / Diane Poole vs Megan Overton / Carly Johnston3-6, 6-3, 0-1
2022-11-30vs Sunpro-Belliston/AndersonLost 01
L#2 Female DoublesDiane Poole / Mithona Nielsen vs Carrie Jensen / Raquel Moss3-6, 2-5
2022-11-17vs Wasatch Rec Center-Davis/McBrideSplit 11
L#1 Female DoublesKrissie Summerhays / Robin Asmar vs Jessica Larson / Jennifer Mcbride1-6, 3-6
W#3 Female DoublesSarah Yates / Diane Poole vs Julie Gabler / Kristin Finlayson7-6, 5-4
2022-11-09vs Sports Mall-GriffithsWon 10
W#3 Female DoublesKrissie Summerhays / Robin Asmar vs Lisa Armstrong / Holly Ricker6-2, 7-5
2022-11-02vs Provo High School-PageLost 01
L#1 Female DoublesDiane Poole / Sarah Law vs Lisa Michie / Angela Woods4-6, 1-3
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 standings15 teams · 3.0W
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Ace Athletics-Bastian5119511139
2Sports Mall-Majors/Jensen5118613140
3Sports Mall-Shoff/Stebbing5118614139
4Park City MARC-Byrne5117717157
5Ivory Ridge-McCord/Wily5116819164
6Sunpro-Belliston/Anderson4215921184
7Ogden-Cox/Johnstun42131124179
8Sports Mall-Lyon/George33131125191
9Provo High School-Page33121228200
10Red Ledges-Overton/Wood33131128196
11Cottonwood Club-Wolfgram/Winson33111328197
12Sunpro-Donaldson/Cardall1571736228
13Sports Mall-Griffiths1561837221
14RISE AC-Orme1561838234
15Wasatch Rec Center-Davis/McBride0651940255

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 2.99 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.

3.72
Mithona Nielsen
usually #3 Female Doubles 50%, also #1 Female Singles 25% · published 4
3.17
Sarah Law
published
3.12
Lindy Parks
published 3.5
3.03
Diane Poole
usually #2 Female Doubles 50%, also #1 Female Doubles 25% · published 3
3.00
Sarah Yates
published
2.93
Katie Winson
usually #1 Female Doubles 60%, also #3 Female Doubles 40% · published 3.5
2.89
Kadee Wolfgram
usually #2 Female Doubles 60%, also #1 Female Doubles 40% · published 3.5
2.87
Kelley Allred
published
2.77
Krissie Summerhays
usually #3 Female Doubles 50%, also #1 Female Doubles 50% · published 3
2.67
Anna Pearce
published 3
2.66
Caryl Fletcher
usually #3 Female Doubles 33%, also #2 Female Doubles 33% · published 3
Kelly Lund
published
Nooshin Prasthofer
published
Paula Naatz
published
Robin Asmar
published
Tracee Kemp
published
Valeriya Vasenina
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.

Caryl Fletcher + Paula Naatz4262% games+12.2% vs expected
Tracee Kemp + Kelley Allred5259% games+7.3% vs expected
Caryl Fletcher + Anna Pearce12357% games+4.9% vs expected
Sarah Yates + Caryl Fletcher4254% games+3.7% vs expected
Mithona Nielsen + Kadee Wolfgram5745% games+3.6% vs expected
Kelly Lund + Lindy Parks312354% games+2.1% vs expected
Katie Winson + Kelley Allred12556% games+1.1% vs expected
Lindy Parks + Krissie Summerhays111949% games+0.3% 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
Mithona Nielsen
113W–116L career · 4 lines in 2022
5%94%1%
3.72
Sarah Law
85W–85L career · no lines in 2022
10%90%1%
3.17
3.5
Lindy Parks
121W–91L career · no lines in 2022
17%83%<1%
3.12
3
Diane Poole
191W–165L career · 4 lines in 2022
<1%41%59%
3.03
Sarah Yates
55W–39L career · no lines in 2022
48%52%<1%
3.00
3.5
Katie Winson
128W–124L career · 5 lines in 2022
70%30%<1%
2.93
3.5
Kadee Wolfgram
97W–84L career · 5 lines in 2022
80%20%<1%
2.89
Kelley Allred
71W–58L career · no lines in 2022
<1%84%16%
2.87
3
Krissie Summerhays
110W–123L career · 2 lines in 2022
2%94%4%
2.77
3
Anna Pearce
53W–29L career · no lines in 2022
10%89%<1%
2.67
3
Caryl Fletcher
142W–122L career · 6 lines in 2022
11%88%<1%
2.66
Kelly Lund
39W–39L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Monika de St Germain
9W–5L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Nooshin Prasthofer
97W–124L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Paula Naatz
58W–84L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Robin Asmar
26W–67L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Tracee Kemp
39W–100L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Valeriya Vasenina
14W–16L career · no lines in 2022
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.