SGV Fenoms- Loevinger-Flint Canyon/SA 12

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 SGV - Women 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 2.79 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.

2.92

Alice Markowski

usually #1 Singles 43%, also #2 Singles 29% · published 3

2.90

Katherine Loevinger

published —

2.87

Sophia Chang

published —

—

Christina Bang

published 3

—

Connie Becker

published 3

2.65

ANN GRAY

published 3

2.63

Pauline Mauro

published —

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.

Alice Markowski

70W–69L career · 7 lines in 2022

<1%74%26%

2.92

—

Katherine Loevinger

2W–3L career · no lines in 2022

<1%78%22%

2.90

—

Sophia Chang

10W–14L career · no lines in 2022

<1%84%16%

2.87

Christina Bang

1W–1L career · type S · no lines in 2022

not enough data

—

Connie Becker

0W–2L career · type S · no lines in 2022

not enough data

—

ANN GRAY

0W–3L career · no lines in 2022

13%87%<1%

2.65

—

Pauline Mauro

7W–18L career · no lines in 2022

17%83%<1%

2.63

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.