Teams

Cottonwood Club-Ando

2021 USTA Adult 18 & Over · 3.5W PM

22 players · average NTRP 3.67 / 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 →
Schedule4 played
2021-06-01vs Spanish Fork-JensenWon 10
W#2 SinglesLauren Bryce vs Robyn Cardon7-5, 7-5
2021-05-18Lost 01
L#1 SinglesMithona Nielsen vs Jennifer Kane3-6, 2-6
2021-04-24Lost 02
L#2 SinglesLauren Bryce vs Crystel Fox3-6, 2-6
L#3 DoublesLaurie Costello / Nicole Fisher vs Robin Simmons / Michelle Cutler4-6, 3-6
W#2 SinglesLauren Bryce vs Shelby Rose7-6, 3-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesMithona Nielsen / Nicole Fisher vs LaNece Andreason / Mary Sorensen7-6, 2-6, 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 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 3.39 estimated across 16 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.

3.79
Courtney Bedke
usually #1 Singles 46%, also #3 Doubles 18% · published 4
3.79
Rachel Mcillece
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #1 Singles 20% · published 4
3.79
Angela Bleak
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Singles 17% · published 4
3.73
Regan Tieff
usually #2 Doubles 40%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published 4
3.72
Mithona Nielsen
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.71
Chandi Hurd
usually #2 Doubles 39%, also #1 Singles 23% · published 4
3.70
Lori Briesacher
usually #3 Doubles 25%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 4
3.37
Lauren Bryce
usually #2 Singles 100% · published
3.33
Lisa Ewing
usually #2 Doubles 33%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
3.28
Janice Stokes-Burns
usually #1 Doubles 82%, also #2 Doubles 18% · published 3.5
Beata Kieffer
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 38% · published 3.5
3.25
Heather Sliwa
usually #3 Doubles 40%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published 3.5
3.21
Lauren Annunziata
usually #1 Doubles 71%, also #3 Doubles 14% · published 3.5
3.13
Terri Brunner
usually #2 Doubles 33%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.00
Allison Leishman
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 38% · published 3.5
2.85
Tracy Duncan
published
Laurie Costello
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.66
Isabel Cristina Lau
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #1 Singles 50% · published 3
Cassandra Ando
published
Nicole Fisher
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Singles 33% · published
Sarah Newman
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
Sheri Thompson
usually #3 Doubles 57%, also #2 Doubles 29% · 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.

Mithona Nielsen + Nicole Fisher3256% games+14.1% vs expected
Nicole Fisher + Lauren Annunziata5266% games+9.8% vs expected
Beata Kieffer + Janice Stokes-Burns14560% games+9.2% vs expected
Mithona Nielsen + Angela Bleak13357% games+9.2% vs expected
Lori Briesacher + Regan Tieff8261% games+6.6% vs expected
Terri Brunner + Lori Briesacher5063% games+6.6% vs expected
Lisa Ewing + Lori Briesacher4255% games+6.1% vs expected
Terri Brunner + Heather Sliwa231253% games+3.9% 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
Courtney Bedke
85W–39L career · 10 lines in 2021
1%93%5%
3.79
4
Rachel Mcillece
105W–44L career · 5 lines in 2021
1%93%5%
3.79
4
Angela Bleak
214W–163L career · 6 lines in 2021
1%94%5%
3.79
4
Regan Tieff
196W–107L career · 10 lines in 2021
4%94%2%
3.73
4
Mithona Nielsen
113W–116L career · 2 lines in 2021
5%94%1%
3.72
4
Chandi Hurd
183W–142L career · 13 lines in 2021
6%93%1%
3.71
4
Lori Briesacher
141W–98L career · 10 lines in 2021
6%93%1%
3.70
Lauren Bryce
63W–65L career · 3 lines in 2021
<1%84%16%
3.37
Lisa Ewing
122W–123L career · 11 lines in 2021
1%89%10%
3.33
3.5
Janice Stokes-Burns
132W–134L career · 11 lines in 2021
2%94%5%
3.28
3.5
Beata Kieffer
55W–50L career · 8 lines in 2021
not enough data
3.5
Heather Sliwa
82W–61L career · 5 lines in 2021
3%95%3%
3.25
3.5
Lauren Annunziata
136W–138L career · 7 lines in 2021
5%94%1%
3.21
3.5
Terri Brunner
142W–142L career · 6 lines in 2021
17%83%<1%
3.13
3.5
Allison Leishman
132W–210L career · 8 lines in 2021
51%49%<1%
3.00
Tracy Duncan
3W–0L career · no lines in 2021
<1%87%12%
2.85
3
Laurie Costello
72W–98L career · 1 line in 2021
not enough data
3
Isabel Cristina Lau
48W–93L career · 4 lines in 2021
11%88%<1%
2.66
Cassandra Ando
2W–0L career · no lines in 2021
not enough data
Nicole Fisher
102W–64L career · 3 lines in 2021
not enough data
Sarah Newman
62W–12L career · 4 lines in 2021
not enough data
Sheri Thompson
51W–21L career · 7 lines in 2021
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.