Teams

SFV-Braemar Is Back

SFV-SoCal Doubles-18 & Over · SFV - Women 4.5

10 players · average NTRP 4.36 / SO.CALIFORNIA

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
W#1 DoublesKaren Hankinson / Jennifer Berman vs Lily Wu / Canna Furuta6-1, 6-1
2021-11-13Won 10
W#1 DoublesJennifer Berman / Karen Hankinson vs N/A6-0, 6-0
2021-11-07vs SFV-LLW - Holy Guacamole - Lily WuLost 01
L#2 DoublesDiane Perryman / Cynthia Neiman vs Michelle Zhong / Lauren DiFazio2-6, 5-7
2021-10-09vs SFV-WC - Vamos! - Su CumboLost 02
L#1 DoublesYuri Nichelson / Julie Juliani vs Jennifer Avila / Amy Shigenaga4-6, 7-6, 1-0
L#2 DoublesDiane Perryman / Cynthia Neiman vs Christy Foreman / Monica Bandy2-6, 1-6
2021-10-02Won 10
W#2 DoublesJulie Juliani / Yuri Nichelson vs N/A6-0, 6-0
2021-09-18vs SFV-WC - Vamos! - Su CumboLost 02
L#2 DoublesCarolyn Atchison / Yuri Nichelson vs Claudia Vine / Eriko Shigenaga2-6, 6-4, 0-1
L#3 DoublesKaren Hankinson / Diane Perryman vs Jennifer Avila / Marguerite Brook4-6, 6-7
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 SFV - Women 4.5 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 4.11 estimated across 9 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.

4.63
Carolyn Atchison
published 5
4.44
Yuri Nichelson
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 4.5
4.38
Karen Hankinson
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 4.5
4.19
Ingrid Konupek
published 4.5
4.12
Kelly Ford
published
3.90
Cynthia Neiman
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.86
Diane Perryman
published 4
3.84
Joanah Greenspan
published
3.59
Elisa Hamed
published 4
Julie Juliani
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.

Karen Hankinson + Yuri Nichelson4156% gamesnot enough data
Carolyn Atchison + Yuri Nichelson3255% gamesnot enough data
Karen Hankinson + Diane Perryman134 matchesnot enough data
Yuri Nichelson + Diane Perryman224 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.

5
Carolyn Atchison
64W–35L career · no lines in 2021
15%85%<1%
4.63
4.5
Yuri Nichelson
207W–73L career · 3 lines in 2021
<1%67%33%
4.44
4.5
Karen Hankinson
131W–70L career · 3 lines in 2021
<1%82%18%
4.38
4.5
Ingrid Konupek
3W–2L career · no lines in 2021
7%92%1%
4.19
Kelly Ford
7W–6L career · no lines in 2021
18%82%<1%
4.12
4
Cynthia Neiman
28W–27L career · 2 lines in 2021
<1%77%23%
3.90
4
Diane Perryman
91W–104L career · no lines in 2021
<1%86%14%
3.86
Joanah Greenspan
14W–11L career · no lines in 2021
<1%89%11%
3.84
4
Elisa Hamed
4W–5L career · no lines in 2021
24%76%<1%
3.59
Julie Juliani
4W–4L career · no lines in 2021
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.