Teams

Cottonwood Club-Ricker

2025 USTA Adult 18 & Over · 3.0W AM

15 players · average NTRP 3.05 / 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 →
Schedule

Flight standings for 3.0W AM 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 2.81 estimated across 13 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 Doubles 39%, also #2 Doubles 22% · published
3.24
Mary Diaz Gordon
usually #1 Singles 42%, also #2 Singles 25% · published 3.5
3.21
Karol Liced Sanchez Vanegas
usually #1 Singles 71%, also #3 Doubles 14% · published
3.04
Ally Lyle
usually #2 Singles 83%, also #3 Doubles 17% · published 3
3.01
Jamuna Nielsen
usually #2 Doubles 24%, also #2 Singles 24% · published 3.5
2.91
Amanda Krejci
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 13% · published 3
2.88
Melissa Child
usually #1 Doubles 43%, also #2 Doubles 29% · published 3
2.83
Brittany Pope
usually #1 Doubles 40%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published 3
Alison Barber
published 3
2.63
Sara Turley
usually #2 Doubles 57%, also #3 Doubles 29% · published 3
2.60
Kristina Maljovec
usually #2 Singles 36%, also #2 Doubles 36% · published 3
2.49
Holly Ricker
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.34
Kylee Bryson
usually #3 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published
2.17
Kristin Rocke
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 2.5
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.

Karol Liced Sanchez Vanegas + Jane Woolley5077% games+18.0% vs expected
Karol Liced Sanchez Vanegas + Sara Turley3263% games+15.0% 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
Jamuna Nielsen + Mary Diaz Gordon10360% games+9.3% vs expected
Mary Diaz Gordon + Jane Woolley6260% games+6.2% vs expected
Alison Barber + Jamuna Nielsen5450% games+5.7% 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 · 22 lines in 2025
4%93%4%
3.25
3.5
Mary Diaz Gordon
108W–65L career · 22 lines in 2025
4%93%3%
3.24
Karol Liced Sanchez Vanegas
90W–56L career · 14 lines in 2025
6%92%2%
3.21
3
Ally Lyle
43W–20L career · 6 lines in 2025
<1%39%61%
3.04
3.5
Jamuna Nielsen
126W–120L career · 22 lines in 2025
48%52%<1%
3.01
3
Amanda Krejci
62W–55L career · 8 lines in 2025
<1%73%27%
2.91
3
Melissa Child
73W–73L career · 7 lines in 2025
<1%81%19%
2.88
3
Brittany Pope
36W–29L career · 5 lines in 2025
1%88%11%
2.83
3
Alison Barber
16W–23L career · type A · no lines in 2025
not enough data
3
Sara Turley
45W–58L career · 7 lines in 2025
17%82%<1%
2.63
3
Kristina Maljovec
17W–16L career · 11 lines in 2025
25%75%<1%
2.60
3
Holly Ricker
57W–151L career · type A · 6 lines in 2025
53%47%<1%
2.49
Kylee Bryson
21W–37L career · 5 lines in 2025
88%12%<1%
2.34
2.5
Kristin Rocke
22W–44L career · 4 lines in 2025
0%99%1%
2.17
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.