OC Great Park - Nan Diesen-Ng 9:30
2026 USTA Adult 40 & Over WEEKDAY WOMEN · OC 4.0W
16 players · average NTRP 3.79 / SO.CALIFORNIA
No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.
Schedule7 played
i
Flight standings16 teams · OC 4.0W
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1OC LLW Dana Hills - Dara - 10 | 7 | 0 | 17 | 225 |
| 2WC OC LNRC - Devon | 6 | 1 | 15 | 178 |
| 3OC Coto De Caza - Allie | 5 | 2 | 24 | 218 |
| 4OC Irvine GP - Susie R - 10 | 5 | 2 | 24 | 227 |
| 5OC Great Park - Nan Diesen-Ng 9:30 | 5 | 2 | 29 | 242 |
| 6OC CMTC - Sabrina - 930 | 4 | 3 | 24 | 219 |
| 7OC Net Assets LNRC - Gina J | 4 | 3 | 29 | 258 |
| 8OC YLCC - Claudia | 4 | 3 | 31 | 249 |
| 9OC RCI - Randi - 12 | 3 | 4 | 33 | 255 |
| 10OC Great Park - Miki - 10 | 3 | 4 | 33 | 269 |
| 11OC The Huntington Club - Jo | 3 | 4 | 41 | 275 |
| 12OC Lifetime RSC - Kelly | 2 | 5 | 35 | 272 |
| 13OC Mission Viejo CC - Carrie | 2 | 5 | 46 | 312 |
| 14OC Lifetime SC - Merwin | 1 | 6 | 43 | 299 |
| 15OC Dana Hills TC - Sue | 1 | 6 | 46 | 297 |
| 16OC Newport Beach TC - Nedra - 10 | 1 | 6 | 46 | 306 |
Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.
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 3.59 estimated across 15 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.
Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.
| Huma Khan + Judy Khang | 6–0 | 67% games | +16.2% vs expected |
| Michele Savoie + Sabrina MacLachlan | 8–3 | 53% games | +4.9% vs expected |
| Huma Khan + Amy Huynh | 6–0 | 70% games | not enough data |
| Sa Cool + Irene Fehr | 3–2 | 52% games | not enough data |
| Sa Cool + Paula Nishibayashi | 1–2 | 3 matches | not enough data |
| Mary DeVlugt + Judy Khang | 1–2 | 3 matches | not enough data |
| Michele Savoie + Amy Huynh | 2–1 | 3 matches | not enough data |
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.
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.