Teams

SBTC-Honey Deuce's

2025 SCTA Doubles League - Santa Barbara · SB - Women Doubles - 3.5

27 players · average NTRP 3.33 / SO.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 →
Schedule6 played
W#1 DoublesShirley Sanematsu / Nicole Wester vs Annie Dzierski / Colleen Rickman6-3, 3-6, 1-0
2025-11-09vs Muni-WLPL&TSplit 11
W#1 DoublesAmy Jakobson / Nicole Wester vs KC Collins / Jaclyn Park6-4, 5-2
L#2 DoublesTricia Fahnoe / Renee Hennessee vs Susan Rettig / Nina Gustason5-7, 4-6
2025-10-19vs SB LLWx-Pickled TinisWon 10
W#1 DoublesLacy Selby / Amy Jakobson vs Kendall Pata / Molly Diener6-4, 2-6, 1-0
2025-10-05vs Muni-WLPL&TWon 10
W#1 DoublesLacy Selby / Amy Jakobson vs KC Collins / Walden Bohnet6-3, 4-6, 1-0
2025-09-28vs Elings-Les RacquettesWon 10
W#1 DoublesLacy Selby / Amy Jakobson vs Emma Mollenhauer / Felisa Manion6-3, 2-6, 1-0
2025-09-14vs SB LLWx-Pickled TinisLost 01
L#1 DoublesKatherine Morris / Nicole Wester vs Jackie Gregoire / Kendall Pata3-6, 2-6
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 SB - Women Doubles - 3.5 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 2.98 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.

3.40
Tricia Fahnoe
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.37
Nicole Wester
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.28
Lacy Selby
usually #1 Doubles 43%, also #2 Doubles 29% · published 3.5
3.24
3.21
Amy Jakobson
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.06
Stephanie Ornani
published
3.06
Lisa MacHado
published
3.03
Renee Hennessee
published
2.99
Diana Cuttrell
published 3.5
2.94
Jill Byron-Salzman
published
2.89
Shirley Sanematsu
published
2.87
Susan Dunton
published
2.86
2.83
Lisa Reich
published
Alana Guinn
published 3
2.73
Linda Stirling
published
2.69
Darcie Burk
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.69
Melinda Miller
published
2.49
Renee Houston
published 3
Barbara Jelks
published
Carolyn Vogt
published
Katherine Morris
published
Kathleen Burt
published
Kathryn Hinsch
published
Kathy Marvin
published
Pamela Westlund
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.

Lacy Selby + Tricia Fahnoe5551% games+11.5% vs expected
Amy Jakobson + Lacy Selby111049% games+0.3% vs expected
Katherine Morris + Diana Cuttrell4644% games−2.1% vs expected
Amy Jakobson + Nicole Wester4161% gamesnot enough data
Lacy Selby + Nicole Wester5069% gamesnot enough data
Renee Hennessee + Tricia Fahnoe0534% gamesnot enough data
Renee Houston + Darcie Burk134 matchesnot enough data
Mary Auchincloss-Del Bonis + Stephanie Ornani224 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.

3.5
Tricia Fahnoe
41W–40L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%77%23%
3.40
3.5
Nicole Wester
25W–13L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%82%17%
3.37
3.5
Lacy Selby
50W–63L career · 7 lines in 2025
2%92%6%
3.28
Michelle-marie Burmester
11W–16L career · no lines in 2025
4%93%3%
3.24
3.5
Amy Jakobson
42W–85L career · 4 lines in 2025
7%91%2%
3.21
Stephanie Ornani
2W–4L career · no lines in 2025
33%67%<1%
3.06
Lisa MacHado
10W–14L career · no lines in 2025
34%65%<1%
3.06
Renee Hennessee
5W–27L career · no lines in 2025
42%58%<1%
3.03
3.5
Diana Cuttrell
14W–32L career · no lines in 2025
52%48%<1%
2.99
Mary Auchincloss-Del Bonis
2W–9L career · no lines in 2025
57%43%<1%
2.98
Jill Byron-Salzman
10W–11L career · no lines in 2025
<1%66%34%
2.94
Shirley Sanematsu
3W–13L career · no lines in 2025
<1%79%21%
2.89
Susan Dunton
1W–11L career · no lines in 2025
<1%82%18%
2.87
3.5
Christina Kensington
8W–19L career · no lines in 2025
84%16%<1%
2.86
Lisa Reich
7W–13L career · no lines in 2025
89%11%<1%
2.83
3
Alana Guinn
0W–4L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Linda Stirling
3W–15L career · no lines in 2025
97%3%<1%
2.73
3
Darcie Burk
2W–10L career · type S · 3 lines in 2025
8%90%1%
2.69
Melinda Miller
2W–4L career · no lines in 2025
99%1%<1%
2.69
3
Renee Houston
12W–43L career · no lines in 2025
52%48%<1%
2.49
Barbara Jelks
2W–0L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Carolyn Vogt
0W–4L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Katherine Morris
18W–24L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Kathleen Burt
1W–3L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Kathryn Hinsch
3W–12L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Kathy Marvin
1W–1L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Pamela Westlund
7W–17L 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.