Teams

Missouri City - Love All

2025 HTA Spring NA - Ladies Doubles Friday · 4.0

14 players · average NTRP 3.67 / TEXAS

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 →
Schedule2 played
2025-04-13vs Cross Creek - AngelsLost 03
L#1 DoublesLinda Flood Chavers / Mari Saiki vs Anna Arante / Ada Sun7-5, 1-6, 0-1
L#2 DoublesAlice Johnsen / Diem Nguyen vs Angeli Zhang / Holly Miday7-6, 4-6, 1-0
L#3 DoublesHelen Sabbagh / DEBRA DRYER vs Marianna Laforce / Diane Wheaton5-7, 1-6
2025-02-14vs New TerritoryWon 20
W#1 DoublesVeronica Holton / Mercedes Madamba vs Erika Franklin / Brooke Griffith6-2, 7-5
W#2 DoublesDiem Nguyen / Alice Johnsen vs Kathe Baker / Beth Schoemann6-4, 6-0
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 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 3.36 estimated across 11 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.

Diem Nguyen
published 4
3.61
Veronica Holton
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.52
Erica Allen
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.51
Mari Saiki
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.41
Linda Flood Chavers
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.38
Laura Bobart
published
3.38
DEBRA DRYER
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.36
Alice Johnsen
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.28
Helen Sabbagh
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.25
Siri Vann
published
3.16
Mercedes Madamba
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.12
Rose Vuong
published
Karen Brock
published
Yoko Hosokawa
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.

Helen Sabbagh + Veronica Holton2537% games−10.3% vs expected
Yoko Hosokawa + Mari Saiki3341% games−15.3% vs expected
Alice Johnsen + Mari Saiki033 matchesnot enough data
Laura Bobart + Karen Brock213 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.

4
Diem Nguyen
27W–8L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Veronica Holton
22W–11L career · 1 line in 2025
22%78%<1%
3.61
Erica Allen
32W–20L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%44%56%
3.52
Mari Saiki
6W–12L career · 1 line in 2025
47%53%<1%
3.51
Linda Flood Chavers
20W–27L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%74%26%
3.41
Laura Bobart
25W–26L career · no lines in 2025
<1%80%20%
3.38
3.5
DEBRA DRYER
18W–14L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%81%19%
3.38
3.5
Alice Johnsen
9W–16L career · 2 lines in 2025
1%84%16%
3.36
Helen Sabbagh
14W–27L career · 1 line in 2025
2%92%6%
3.28
Siri Vann
28W–24L career · no lines in 2025
96%4%<1%
3.25
Mercedes Madamba
51W–55L career · 1 line in 2025
13%87%1%
3.16
Rose Vuong
13W–15L career · no lines in 2025
20%80%<1%
3.12
Karen Brock
5W–7L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Yoko Hosokawa
5W–4L 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.