Teams

LLW-CV-Palm Desert Resort/Sanae Chance

2022 SoCal Doubles - CV · CV Women's 3.5

13 players · average NTRP 3.57 / SO.CALIFORNIA

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
W#2 DoublesBlair Stone / Nadine Kim vs Barbara Maher / Jennifer Ruddell7-6, 6-4
W#3 DoublesNadine Kim / Blair Stone vs Kathy Rogers / Susan Hope6-1, 2-6, 1-0
W#1 DoublesMarcia Howell / Lesley Gagnon vs Barbara Wood / Suzette Willetts7-5, 3-6, 1-0
2022-10-30vs CV-Palm Springs TC/Ramos & K RogersSplit 11
L#1 DoublesNadine Kim / Patricia Taylor vs Sue Cannon / Celeste Manolas4-6, 4-6
W#3 DoublesSanae Chance / Blair Stone vs Patricia Baughman / Lorene Peirce4-3
W#1 DoublesBlair Stone / Catherine Lind vs Gianna Riley / Mary Lockrem6-4, 6-4
W#3 DoublesHeidi Kelly / Nadine Kim vs Georgette LePage / Laura Susskind6-3, 6-2
W#1 DoublesNadine Kim / Marcia Howell vs Suzette Willetts / Barbara Wood6-3, 4-6, 1-0
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 CV Women's 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 3.31 estimated across 10 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.

Catherine Lind
published 4
3.49
Patricia Taylor
published
3.39
Blair Stone
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.34
Nadine Kim
usually #1 Doubles 40%, also #3 Doubles 40% · published
3.31
Maribeth Pullman
published
3.30
Denise Roethenmund
published 3.5
3.28
Heidi Kelly
published 3.5
3.27
Dianne Dalton
published 3.5
3.26
Lesley Gagnon
published
3.25
Gina Orban
published 3.5
3.21
Barbara Holmsten
published 3.5
Marcia Howell
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 0
Sanae Chance
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.

Barbara Holmsten + Lesley Gagnon3745% games−0.3% vs expected
Nadine Kim + Lesley Gagnon13457% games−6.5% vs expected
Nadine Kim + Patricia Taylor134 matchesnot enough data
Lesley Gagnon + Patricia Taylor123 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
Catherine Lind
2W–0L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Patricia Taylor
3W–7L career · no lines in 2022
>99%<1%<1%
3.49
3.5
Blair Stone
115W–62L career · 4 lines in 2022
<1%80%20%
3.39
Nadine Kim
90W–96L career · 5 lines in 2022
<1%89%10%
3.34
Maribeth Pullman
3W–3L career · no lines in 2022
1%91%8%
3.31
3.5
Denise Roethenmund
12W–11L career · no lines in 2022
1%93%6%
3.30
3.5
Heidi Kelly
56W–52L career · no lines in 2022
1%94%5%
3.28
3.5
Dianne Dalton
7W–8L career · no lines in 2022
2%94%4%
3.27
Lesley Gagnon
16W–17L career · no lines in 2022
2%95%3%
3.26
3.5
Gina Orban
1W–3L career · no lines in 2022
3%95%3%
3.25
3.5
Barbara Holmsten
4W–10L career · no lines in 2022
6%93%1%
3.21
0
Marcia Howell
45W–56L career · 2 lines in 2022
not enough data
Sanae Chance
0W–2L career · no lines in 2022
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.