Teams

SGV Dare Doubles-Zane-WN/SU12

2026 Winter Team Singles · SGV - Women 3.5

9 players · average NTRP 3.42 / SO.CALIFORNIA

View scouting list →
Schedule7 played
L#1 SinglesCarmen Martinez vs Sean Ky4-6, 1-6
W#2 SinglesPam Barbato vs Dayna Moelleken7-6, 6-2
W#3 SinglesRachel Newhall vs Terry Meng6-3, 4-6, 1-0
L#1 SinglesPam Barbato vs Jennifer Sung1-6, 6-7
L#2 SinglesRachel Newhall vs Shelly Cohen1-6, 6-2, 0-1
W#3 SinglesPenny Zhang vs Laurene Sandoval6-3, 6-0
W#1 SinglesPam Barbato vs Angelina Snyder6-3, 6-2
W#2 SinglesRachel Newhall vs Kathleen Hipps6-1, 6-2
W#3 SinglesSandra Zane vs Amanda Nelson6-4, 6-4
2026-02-15vs SGV Arcadia Apex-Li-Arcadia-SU5Won 21
L#1 SinglesLeslie Le vs Jade Kessinger3-6, 2-6
W#2 SinglesRachel Newhall vs Su Li6-1, 6-3
W#3 SinglesJill Jobran vs Julia Arnold6-3, 6-2
L#1 SinglesCarmen Martinez vs Lisa Haroutunian1-6, 1-6
W#2 SinglesPenny Zhang vs Angelina Snyder6-3, 7-6
L#3 SinglesRachel Newhall vs Shani Maymon3-6, 6-4, 1-0
W#1 SinglesPam Barbato vs Antoinette Lessuk3-6, 6-3, 1-0
L#2 SinglesCarmen Martinez vs Dayna Moelleken4-6, 4-6
W#3 SinglesRachel Newhall vs Francesca Gill6-1, 6-0
L#1 SinglesRachel Newhall vs Claire Rifelj6-7, 4-6
W#2 SinglesPam Barbato vs Lourdes Duarte6-4, 6-3
W#3 SinglesLeslie Le vs Laurene Sandoval6-4, 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 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 3.24 estimated across 8 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 #3 Singles 100% · published 3.5
3.40
Rachel Newhall
usually #2 Singles 43%, also #3 Singles 43% · published
3.32
Michaela Nazareno
published 3.5
3.31
Pam Barbato
usually #1 Singles 60%, also #2 Singles 40% · published 3.5
3.15
Penny Zhang
usually #1 Singles 43%, also #2 Singles 43% · published
3.12
Carmen Martinez
usually #1 Singles 67%, also #2 Singles 33% · published 3.5
3.09
Leslie Le
usually #3 Singles 50%, also #1 Singles 50% · published
3.03
Sandra Zane
usually #3 Singles 100% · published 3.5
ANALILY PARK
usually #3 Singles 100% · 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 · 1 line in 2026
<1%39%61%
3.54
Rachel Newhall
8W–6L career · 7 lines in 2026
<1%<1%>99%
3.40
3.5
Michaela Nazareno
15W–6L career · no lines in 2026
1%89%10%
3.32
3.5
Pam Barbato
100W–64L career · 5 lines in 2026
1%90%9%
3.31
Penny Zhang
51W–11L career · 7 lines in 2026
0%<1%>99%
3.15
3.5
Carmen Martinez
1W–12L career · 3 lines in 2026
19%81%<1%
3.12
Leslie Le
22W–37L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%26%74%
3.09
3.5
Sandra Zane
146W–141L career · 1 line in 2026
42%58%<1%
3.03
3
ANALILY PARK
2W–4L career · 1 line in 2026
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.