Teams

Cottonwood Club-Warren

2022 USTA Adult 40 & Over · 4.0W PM

25 players · average NTRP 4.04 / 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 →
Schedule3 played
2022-08-09Won 10
W#3 DoublesJody Neuman / Janelle Pulley vs AMy Huish / Marcela Pomadoro6-2, 6-3
2022-07-26vs Liberty Park Tennis-Berg/HronekWon 20
W#1 SinglesMarce Miles vs Crystel Fox2-6, 6-4, 1-0
W#2 DoublesLori Briesacher / Janelle Pulley vs Miglena Aaron / Mandy Berg6-0, 3-6, 1-0
2022-06-28vs Park City MARC-Greenhalgh/BrooksLost 01
L#1 SinglesMarce Miles vs Faith Petersen4-6, 4-6
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 4.0W 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 3.58 estimated across 17 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.

Allison Rideout
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4.5
4.25
Christina Eischeid
usually #2 Doubles 44%, also #1 Doubles 44% · published 4.5
Carole Sharp
usually #3 Doubles 60%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published 4
3.73
Regan Tieff
usually #1 Singles 43%, also #3 Doubles 43% · published 4
3.71
Christine Littleford
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 4
3.70
Lori Briesacher
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #3 Doubles 40% · published 4
3.66
Lee Chase
usually #1 Doubles 40%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published
3.66
Maria Brockbank
usually #1 Singles 70%, also #1 Doubles 10% · published 4
3.65
Lisa Hakes
usually #1 Doubles 83%, also #2 Doubles 17% · published 4
3.61
Janelle Pulley
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.54
Donna Pizza
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.52
Kim Levine
usually #2 Doubles 33%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
3.52
Pamela Roberts
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 38% · published
3.46
Simone McInnis
usually #2 Doubles 40%, also #3 Doubles 40% · published 4
3.45
Jody Neuman
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.45
Janice Smith
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.44
Andrea Kehl
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 38% · published 4
3.38
Marie Goddard
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 25% · published
3.13
Celia Steele
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
Janice Gennone
published
Julie DeLong
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
Kim Warren
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
Krista Thompson
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
Lisa Garland
usually #1 Singles 57%, also #1 Doubles 29% · published
Marce Miles
usually #1 Singles 100% · 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.

Janelle Pulley + Lori Briesacher4157% games+6.9% vs expected
Lori Briesacher + Regan Tieff8261% games+6.6% vs expected
Carole Sharp + Janice Smith21563% games+4.7% vs expected
Lori Briesacher + Celia Steele1448% games+4.6% vs expected
Julie DeLong + Simone McInnis22561% games+3.4% vs expected
Christine Littleford + Lori Briesacher4260% games+3.2% vs expected
Christine Littleford + Lisa Hakes15462% games+2.9% vs expected
Marie Goddard + Celia Steele3445% games+2.2% 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.

4.5
Allison Rideout
23W–18L career · 6 lines in 2022
not enough data
4.5
Christina Eischeid
124W–57L career · 9 lines in 2022
3%95%2%
4.25
4
Carole Sharp
95W–47L career · 5 lines in 2022
not enough data
4
Regan Tieff
196W–107L career · 7 lines in 2022
4%94%2%
3.73
4
Christine Littleford
116W–72L career · 8 lines in 2022
5%94%1%
3.71
4
Lori Briesacher
141W–98L career · 5 lines in 2022
6%93%1%
3.70
Lee Chase
49W–33L career · 5 lines in 2022
11%89%<1%
3.66
4
Maria Brockbank
212W–198L career · 10 lines in 2022
11%89%<1%
3.66
4
Lisa Hakes
83W–45L career · 6 lines in 2022
13%87%<1%
3.65
4
Janelle Pulley
75W–55L career · 2 lines in 2022
19%81%<1%
3.61
4
Donna Pizza
166W–106L career · 4 lines in 2022
39%61%<1%
3.54
Kim Levine
92W–62L career · 3 lines in 2022
44%56%<1%
3.52
Pamela Roberts
97W–46L career · 8 lines in 2022
45%55%<1%
3.52
4
Simone McInnis
99W–76L career · 5 lines in 2022
63%37%<1%
3.46
4
Jody Neuman
51W–44L career · 5 lines in 2022
65%35%<1%
3.45
Janice Smith
126W–62L career · 6 lines in 2022
66%34%<1%
3.45
4
Andrea Kehl
125W–86L career · 8 lines in 2022
66%34%<1%
3.44
Marie Goddard
36W–42L career · 4 lines in 2022
81%19%<1%
3.38
3.5
Celia Steele
47W–80L career · 1 line in 2022
16%83%<1%
3.13
Janice Gennone
38W–28L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Julie DeLong
72W–38L career · 4 lines in 2022
not enough data
Kim Warren
51W–63L career · 4 lines in 2022
not enough data
Krista Thompson
55W–11L career · 2 lines in 2022
not enough data
Lisa Garland
13W–6L career · 7 lines in 2022
not enough data
Marce Miles
14W–17L 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.