Teams

CHAMISAL TC 18AW3.0A

2025 ADULT 18&Over · Women's 3.0

21 players · average NTRP 3.11 / 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 →

Flight standings for Women's 3.0 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 3.06 estimated across 19 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.

3.67
Monica Harvin
published
3.46
Amy Simpson
published 3.5
3.38
Belinda Mei
published 3.5
3.33
Sarah Saxby
published
3.18
Katie Klevan
published
3.11
Amy Brandt
published 3
3.10
Linda Knowles
published
3.09
Jacqueline Bartlett
published
3.04
Chantal Nelson
published 3
3.03
Andrea Neiman
published 3
2.99
Linda Toplarski
published
2.94
Julie Mccullough
published
2.93
Alicia Biehl
published 3
2.89
Lynn Kovach
published
2.88
Anila Light
published 3
2.85
Brenda Murdock
published 3
2.81
Trinh Retterer
published
2.73
Abby Bettencourt
published 3
2.72
Nancy Nino
published
Michelle Wouden
published
Natalie Lott
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.

Katie Klevan + Jacqueline Bartlett404 matchesnot enough data
Linda Toplarski + Jacqueline Bartlett044 matchesnot enough data
Amy Brandt + Jacqueline Bartlett303 matchesnot enough data
Linda Toplarski + Sarah Saxby213 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.

Monica Harvin
13W–1L career · no lines in 2025
12%87%1%
3.67
3.5
Amy Simpson
7W–4L career · no lines in 2025
<1%62%38%
3.46
3.5
Belinda Mei
4W–1L career · no lines in 2025
<1%81%19%
3.38
Sarah Saxby
8W–8L career · no lines in 2025
1%88%11%
3.33
Katie Klevan
13W–6L career · no lines in 2025
<1%10%90%
3.18
3
Amy Brandt
11W–6L career · no lines in 2025
<1%22%78%
3.11
Linda Knowles
1W–5L career · no lines in 2025
23%77%<1%
3.10
Jacqueline Bartlett
11W–8L career · no lines in 2025
<1%26%74%
3.09
3
Chantal Nelson
5W–1L career · no lines in 2025
<1%39%61%
3.04
3
Andrea Neiman
14W–8L career · no lines in 2025
<1%42%58%
3.03
Linda Toplarski
12W–9L career · no lines in 2025
<1%52%48%
2.99
Julie Mccullough
5W–5L career · no lines in 2025
<1%68%32%
2.94
3
Alicia Biehl
5W–0L career · type A · no lines in 2025
<1%69%31%
2.93
Lynn Kovach
8W–4L career · no lines in 2025
<1%77%22%
2.89
3
Anila Light
4W–4L career · no lines in 2025
<1%81%19%
2.88
3
Brenda Murdock
4W–3L career · no lines in 2025
1%85%15%
2.85
Trinh Retterer
3W–4L career · no lines in 2025
1%90%9%
2.81
3
Abby Bettencourt
2W–2L career · no lines in 2025
5%92%3%
2.73
Nancy Nino
8W–6L career · no lines in 2025
5%92%2%
2.72
Michelle Wouden
1W–1L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Natalie Lott
0W–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.