Teams

MLF

2022 CTA TWILIGHT - NOCO · WOMEN 3.5 - TWILIGHT - NOCO

9 players · average NTRP 3.62 / COLORADO

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 →
Schedule6 played
2022-09-11vs HMTCWon 10
W#1 DoublesAndrea Flake / Camy Davis vs Cimarron Spitz / Wendy Ball6-3, 6-3
2022-08-29vs FCCC PINKLost 01
L#1 DoublesSamantha Gallegos / LaRae Sehr vs Jennifer Camp / Jen Guernsey2-6, 2-6
2022-08-22vs CSU GOLDSplit 11
W#1 DoublesLaRae Sehr / Samantha Gallegos vs Kim Jensen / Camille Benton6-2, 7-6
L#1 SinglesLayne Martin vs Jill Brooks4-6, 1-6
2022-08-08vs LVTA PURPLELost 02
L#1 SinglesLayne Martin vs Meredith Lorick1-6, 0-6
L#2 DoublesMorgan Gordon / Andrea Flake vs Melissa King / Karen Pielin3-6, 6-3, 0-1
2022-08-01vs HMTCWon 20
W#1 DoublesTricia Schuster / LaRae Sehr vs Jill Braddock / Jodi Koronich6-4, 6-2
W#1 SinglesAndrea Flake vs Angela Brown6-1, 6-2
2022-07-25vs FCCC PINKWon 20
W#1 DoublesSamantha Gallegos / LaRae Sehr vs Karen Dunbar / Jennifer Camp6-2, 6-3
W#2 DoublesTricia Schuster / Layne Martin vs Lisa Olsen / Catherine Orr6-2, 6-2
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 WOMEN 3.5 - TWILIGHT - NOCO 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 6 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.

3.92
Camy Davis
published 4
3.39
Layne Martin
usually #1 Singles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.35
Samantha Gallegos
published
3.25
Andrea Flake
usually #1 Singles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.23
Morgan Gordon
published
3.21
LaRae Sehr
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
Karen Kiser
published
Megan Mattix
published
Tricia Schuster
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.

Samantha Gallegos + Layne Martin7257% games+5.1% vs expected
Samantha Gallegos + Andrea Flake3355% games−4.4% vs expected
Samantha Gallegos + LaRae Sehr404 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
Camy Davis
70W–16L career · no lines in 2022
<1%73%27%
3.92
3.5
Layne Martin
38W–20L career · 3 lines in 2022
<1%81%19%
3.39
Samantha Gallegos
54W–28L career · no lines in 2022
<1%88%12%
3.35
3.5
Andrea Flake
129W–81L career · 3 lines in 2022
3%95%3%
3.25
Morgan Gordon
17W–8L career · no lines in 2022
4%94%2%
3.23
3.5
LaRae Sehr
44W–25L career · 4 lines in 2022
6%93%1%
3.21
Karen Kiser
31W–8L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Megan Mattix
19W–14L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Tricia Schuster
4W–0L 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.