Teams

Montana/Bach/40&Over8.0MX

2022 USTA MIXED 40 & OVER · 8.0 Mixed 40 & Over

8 players · average NTRP 4.10 / MONTANA

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 →
Schedule3 played
2022-07-31vs Q TeamWon 21
L#1 DoublesChuck Smith / Danielle Smith vs Paige Darden / Chris Montague4-6, 3-6
W#2 DoublesRaymond Armstrong / Jennifer Nielson vs Mary Ritchie / Ned Tranel6-4, 3-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesAmber Sparks / David Dernbach vs Johncarl Rogge / Nancy Kastner6-1, 6-1
2022-07-30vs Q TeamWon 30
W#1 DoublesAmber Sparks / David Dernbach vs Johncarl Rogge / Nancy Kastner6-0, 6-3
W#2 DoublesMark Johns / Sarah Bach vs Paige Darden / Chris Montague6-4, 6-2
W#3 DoublesChuck Smith / Danielle Smith vs Ann Jackson / Ned Tranel6-2, 7-6
2022-07-29vs Q TeamWon 21
W#1 DoublesAmber Sparks / David Dernbach vs Johncarl Rogge / Nancy Kastner6-3, 6-1
W#2 DoublesMark Johns / Jennifer Nielson vs Paige Darden / Chris Montague6-3, 6-0
L#3 DoublesRaymond Armstrong / Sarah Bach vs Mary Ritchie / Ned Tranel1-6, 6-7
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 8.0 Mixed 40 & Over 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 3.94 estimated across 3 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.

4.15
Amber Sparks
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 4.5
3.89
Sarah Bach
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.78
Danielle Smith
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 4
Chuck Smith
published 4
David Dernbach
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 4
Jennifer Nielson
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Mark Johns
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Raymond Armstrong
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · 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.

Danielle Smith + Raymond Armstrong033 matchesnot enough data
Raymond Armstrong + Sarah Bach213 matchesnot enough data
David Dernbach + Amber Sparks303 matchesnot enough data
David Dernbach + Sarah Bach303 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.

4.5
Amber Sparks
54W–16L career · 3 lines in 2022
12%88%<1%
4.15
4
Sarah Bach
59W–54L career · 2 lines in 2022
<1%80%20%
3.89
4
Danielle Smith
59W–50L career · 2 lines in 2022
2%94%4%
3.78
4
Chuck Smith
5W–3L career · type S · no lines in 2022
not enough data
4
David Dernbach
16W–6L career · 3 lines in 2022
not enough data
Jennifer Nielson
10W–16L career · 2 lines in 2022
not enough data
Mark Johns
13W–2L career · 2 lines in 2022
not enough data
Raymond Armstrong
12W–20L career · 2 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.