Teams

BAY CLUB PL 18AW4.0A-DT

2025 ADULT 18&Over - Daytime · Women 4.0

14 players · average NTRP 3.75 / NO. CALIFORNIA

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
2025-06-10vs PLEASANTON 18AW4.0A-DTLost 01
L#2 DoublesMargaret Harrison / Christina Fleming vs Donna Vis / Sharleen Houston4-6, 4-6
2025-06-09vs BAY TREES PK 18AW4.0A-DTLost 01
L#2 DoublesDaisy Maron / Christina Fleming vs Ana Caroline Leon Williams / Jasmine Morgan0-6, 1-6
2025-05-21vs RUBY HILL GC 18AW4.0A-DTLost 01
L#2 DoublesChristina Fleming / Shelley Lober vs Christine Harkness / Patricia Kang7-6, 6-7, 0-1
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 4.0 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 13 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.

3.97
Margaret Harrison
usually #1 Doubles 89%, also #2 Doubles 11% · published
3.82
Mary Reese
published
3.81
Sonia Barnoff
published
3.75
Laurie Radanovich
published
3.68
Sharon Gottlib
published
3.63
Julie Yi
published
3.62
Susan Aneja
published
3.48
Haili Zhuang
published
3.48
Christina Fleming
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.46
Fang Wong
published
3.38
Shelley Lober
published
3.33
Daisy Maron
published 3.5
3.14
Flora Tang
published
Jing Vasseghi
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.

Julie Yi + Susan Aneja6263% games+11.4% vs expected
Margaret Harrison + Laurie Radanovich11465% games+4.2% vs expected
Sharon Gottlib + Mary Reese7553% games+1.1% vs expected
Daisy Maron + Mary Reese213 matchesnot enough data
Fang Wong + Flora Tang213 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.

Margaret Harrison
325W–140L career · 9 lines in 2025
<1%59%41%
3.97
Mary Reese
16W–12L career · no lines in 2025
1%89%10%
3.82
Sonia Barnoff
18W–5L career · no lines in 2025
1%90%9%
3.81
Laurie Radanovich
45W–12L career · no lines in 2025
<1%4%96%
3.75
Sharon Gottlib
11W–16L career · no lines in 2025
10%89%1%
3.68
Julie Yi
11W–12L career · no lines in 2025
17%83%<1%
3.63
Susan Aneja
37W–31L career · no lines in 2025
19%81%<1%
3.62
Haili Zhuang
3W–2L career · no lines in 2025
54%46%<1%
3.48
4
Christina Fleming
31W–31L career · 3 lines in 2025
55%45%<1%
3.48
Fang Wong
37W–29L career · no lines in 2025
<1%63%37%
3.46
Shelley Lober
13W–17L career · no lines in 2025
<1%81%19%
3.38
3.5
Daisy Maron
6W–12L career · no lines in 2025
1%88%11%
3.33
Flora Tang
20W–12L career · no lines in 2025
15%84%1%
3.14
Jing Vasseghi
5W–1L career · no lines in 2025
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.