Teams

SGV Creme de la Court-Kim-Flint CYN/SU2

2026 SoCal Doubles 18 & Over - San Gabriel Valley · SGV - Women 4.0

13 players · average NTRP 3.86 / 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 →
Flight standings9 teams · SGV - Women 4.0
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1SGV Creme de la Court-Kim-Flint CYN/SU2000000
2SGV Queens of the Court- Vuong-Arroyo Seco/SA4000000
3SGV Tennis Addicts-James Lee-Arroyo HS/SU12000000
4SGV Live Oaks Ladies-Perry-Live Oaks/SA1000000
5SGV TCC- Johnson-Claremont Club/SU8000000
6SGV Terminetters- Bennett-Fremont Park/SA5000000
7SGV Fall Gummies-Manley-Arroyo HS/SU8000000
8SGV Lovers over Lobbers-Aye-San Dimas -SA1000000
9SGV Mo Better Tennis-DeRosa-WN/SA10000000

Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.

See the full flight, with every team’s record

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 3.63 estimated across 13 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.

4.04
Irina Abadzheva
published 4
3.82
Debbie Sierra
published 4
3.77
Penapa Frick
published
3.71
Melissa Mazin
published 4
3.70
Rebecca Stokes
published
3.68
Cindi Carter
published 4
3.68
Lorna Kim
published 4
3.64
Susan Yu
published
3.60
Christine Russell
published 3.5
3.54
Joanne Kim
published
3.54
Holly Lieberenz
published
3.30
Erin Newsome Moltz
published
3.24
Antoinette Lessuk
published 3.5
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.

Holly Lieberenz + Joanne Kim1444% games+10.5% vs expected
Irina Abadzheva + Cindi Carter9457% games+5.9% vs expected
Melissa Mazin + Penapa Frick4255% games+4.6% vs expected
Irina Abadzheva + Susan Yu7357% games+4.1% vs expected
Debbie Sierra + Cindi Carter3647% games+0.4% vs expected
Lorna Kim + Debbie Sierra41044% games+0.3% vs expected
Melissa Mazin + Irina Abadzheva8360% games−0.8% vs expected
Holly Lieberenz + Irina Abadzheva9653% games−7.7% vs expected
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
Irina Abadzheva
233W–146L career · no lines in 2026
<1%40%60%
4.04
4
Debbie Sierra
34W–45L career · type A · no lines in 2026
1%89%10%
3.82
Penapa Frick
12W–9L career · no lines in 2026
3%92%5%
3.77
4
Melissa Mazin
52W–64L career · no lines in 2026
7%91%2%
3.71
Rebecca Stokes
4W–3L career · no lines in 2026
8%91%2%
3.70
4
Cindi Carter
150W–114L career · no lines in 2026
10%89%1%
3.68
4
Lorna Kim
210W–162L career · no lines in 2026
10%89%1%
3.68
Susan Yu
19W–13L career · no lines in 2026
<1%<1%>99%
3.64
3.5
Christine Russell
51W–20L career · no lines in 2026
<1%23%77%
3.60
Joanne Kim
8W–16L career · no lines in 2026
<1%<1%>99%
3.54
Holly Lieberenz
168W–125L career · no lines in 2026
38%61%<1%
3.54
Erin Newsome Moltz
5W–7L career · no lines in 2026
<1%2%98%
3.30
3.5
Antoinette Lessuk
164W–156L career · no lines in 2026
5%92%3%
3.24

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.