← Teams

GEPTA-2.5-Adult/W(Jabor)(EPCC#1)

SouthernNewMexico · 2024 USA SPRING ADULT 18 & OVER LEAGUE

10 players · average NTRP 2.80 / GEPTA

View scouting list →
Schedule
Flight standings8 teams · 2024 USA SPRING ADULT 18 & OVER LEAGUE
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1GEPTA-2.5-Adult/W(McCarthy)(EPTC#2)83221123226
2GEPTA-2.5-Adult/W(Wilcox)(TW)74211225193
3GEPTA-2.5-Adult/W(Jabor)(EPCC#1)65161734256
4GEPTA-2.5-Adult/W(Lechuga)(FB)65171637275
5GEPTA-2.5-Adult/W(Delgado)(EPTC#1)56171636303
6GEPTA-2.5-Adult/W(Fernandez)(EPTC#3)56151842309
7GEPTA-2.5-Adult/W(Porras)(CCC)47132045311
8GEPTA-2.5-Adult/W(Castaneda)(EPCC#2)38112247337

Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.

See the full flight, with every team’s record

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 2.51 estimated across 5 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.

2.81
Angela Darancou
usually #1 Doubles 42%, also #3 Doubles 42% · published 3
2.69
Amelie Baryla
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.57
Cassidy Cybriwsky
usually #1 Doubles 70%, also #1 Singles 20% · published 3
2.31
Cindy Miles
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 20% · published 2.5
2.17
Beatrice Heist
usually #2 Doubles 86%, also #1 Doubles 14% · published 2.5
—
Jennifer Torres
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published —
—
Karyna Vargas
usually #2 Doubles 33%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published —
—
Lizbeth Ozaeta
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Singles 25% · published —
—
Michelle Jabor
usually #3 Doubles 41%, also #2 Doubles 32% · published —
—
Taryn Hunt
usually #3 Doubles 47%, also #1 Doubles 35% · 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.

Taryn Hunt + Michelle Jabor10–2640% games−1.7% vs expected
Cindy Miles + Michelle Jabor3–742% games−4.3% vs expected
Michelle Jabor + Karyna Vargas7–947% gamesnot enough data
Michelle Jabor + Amelie Baryla5–253% gamesnot enough data
Taryn Hunt + Jennifer Torres2–439% gamesnot enough data
Cindy Miles + Taryn Hunt1–434% gamesnot enough data
Taryn Hunt + Karyna Vargas1–432% gamesnot enough data
Taryn Hunt + Amelie Baryla1–34 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.

3
Angela Darancou
15W–11L career · 12 lines in 2024
1%92%7%
2.81
3
Amelie Baryla
35W–27L career · 15 lines in 2024
7%92%1%
2.69
3
Cassidy Cybriwsky
7W–8L career · 10 lines in 2024
29%71%<1%
2.57
2.5
Cindy Miles
21W–50L career · 10 lines in 2024
0%93%7%
2.31
2.5
Beatrice Heist
22W–22L career · 7 lines in 2024
0%99%1%
2.17
—
Jennifer Torres
12W–23L career · 8 lines in 2024
not enough data
—
—
Karyna Vargas
31W–34L career · 11 lines in 2024
not enough data
—
—
Lizbeth Ozaeta
9W–35L career · 12 lines in 2024
not enough data
—
—
Michelle Jabor
55W–79L career · 22 lines in 2024
not enough data
—
—
Taryn Hunt
36W–74L career · 17 lines in 2024
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.