Teams

SGV Dare Doubles-Gardner-WN/SU

2025 Winter Team Singles · SGV - Women 3.5

13 players · average NTRP 3.25 / SO.CALIFORNIA

View scouting list →
Schedule9 played
W#1 SinglesPam Barbato vs Ashley Rodriguez6-1, 6-1
L#1 SinglesJill Jobran vs Rachel Brereton4-6, 6-2, 0-1
W#1 SinglesPam Barbato vs Hae Oh6-1, 6-0
W#2 SinglesSandra Zane vs Demmi Setyono6-3, 6-1
2025-03-08vs SGV Flint Canyon-Morgan-Flint/SA4Split 11
W#1 SinglesPam Barbato vs Virginia Takeuchi6-2, 7-6
L#3 SinglesSandra Zane vs Nancy Pashayan6-7, 4-6
2025-02-23Lost 01
L#3 SinglesLeilani Scholtz vs Corynne Pless6-3, 3-6, 0-1
2025-02-09vs SGV Flint Canyon-Morgan-Flint/SA4Won 10
W#2 SinglesJill Jobran vs Kris Gruaz6-1, 6-3
W#2 SinglesJill Jobran vs Su Li6-1, 6-1
W#3 SinglesPam Barbato vs Kamala Raphael6-2, 6-1
2025-01-18Won 10
W#1 SinglesJill Jobran vs Sharon Hales6-1, 7-6
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 SGV - Women 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 3.21 estimated across 12 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.

3.54
Jill Jobran
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 50% · published 3.5
3.46
Nancy Ray
published
3.43
Shelly Cohen
published
3.38
Shannon Koeppen
published
3.31
Pam Barbato
usually #1 Singles 75%, also #3 Singles 25% · published 3.5
3.22
Rebecca Berman
published
3.15
Julia Arnold
usually #1 Singles 67%, also #2 Singles 33% · published
3.12
Joanna Gardner
published
3.09
Terry Meng
published
3.03
Sandra Zane
usually #3 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 50% · published 3.5
2.91
May Low
published 3
2.83
Leilani Scholtz
usually #3 Singles 100% · published 3
ANALILY PARK
published 3
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.

Sandra Zane + Pam Barbato2642% gamesnot 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
Jill Jobran
171W–46L career · 4 lines in 2025
<1%39%61%
3.54
Nancy Ray
11W–11L career · no lines in 2025
<1%61%39%
3.46
Shelly Cohen
28W–10L career · no lines in 2025
<1%<1%>99%
3.43
Shannon Koeppen
29W–12L career · no lines in 2025
<1%<1%>99%
3.38
3.5
Pam Barbato
100W–64L career · 4 lines in 2025
1%90%9%
3.31
Rebecca Berman
10W–7L career · no lines in 2025
6%92%2%
3.22
Julia Arnold
33W–10L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%15%85%
3.15
Joanna Gardner
29W–20L career · no lines in 2025
<1%19%81%
3.12
Terry Meng
12W–10L career · no lines in 2025
<1%26%74%
3.09
3.5
Sandra Zane
146W–141L career · 2 lines in 2025
42%58%<1%
3.03
3
May Low
28W–22L career · no lines in 2025
<1%74%26%
2.91
3
Leilani Scholtz
20W–37L career · 1 line in 2025
1%88%11%
2.83
3
ANALILY PARK
2W–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.