Teams

SFTC/Lu/San Francisco

2025 Tri-Level 3.5 · 4.0

12 players · average NTRP 4.00 / NO. CALIFORNIA

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
W#1 DoublesLizzie Siegle / Helen Zhang vs Lisa Trusheim / Elizabeth Shalev4-6, 7-5, 1-0
W#2 DoublesSandy Shepherd / Anthea Pang vs Jennifer Holmes / Lisa Eastlack6-1, 7-6
W#3 DoublesPaulina Gebska / Jess Sterrett vs Tori Herzog / Melinda Whitmore6-2, 6-0
L#1 DoublesLizzie Siegle / Helen Zhang vs Clarissa Fung / Cathy Xin4-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesSandy Shepherd / Kelly Bennett vs Vanessa Graciano / Yukari Seki4-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesMarilena Gallotta / Jing Gu vs Ronnie Yamanaka / Keri Smith2-6, 1-6
L#1 DoublesLizzie Siegle / Helen Zhang vs Jennifer Fong / Jean To6-4, 5-7, 0-1
W#2 DoublesAmanda Singer / Kelly Bennett vs Amy Jiang / La Phengrasamy6-4, 5-7, 1-0
L#3 DoublesJess Sterrett / Marilena Gallotta vs Suratwadee Lakornwong / Nancy Wu4-6, 3-6
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 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 3.70 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.

4.17
Lizzie Siegle
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
4.05
Fan Lau
published
3.90
Amanda Singer
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.85
Anthea Pang
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.74
Jess Sterrett
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.73
Helen Zhang
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.69
Kelly Bennett
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.39
Marilena Gallotta
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.36
Shan Lu
published
3.11
Jing Gu
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Paulina Gebska
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Sandy Shepherd
usually #2 Doubles 100% · 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.

Lizzie Siegle + Helen Zhang123 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.

Lizzie Siegle
7W–4L career · 3 lines in 2025
11%88%1%
4.17
Fan Lau
4W–8L career · no lines in 2025
36%64%<1%
4.05
4
Amanda Singer
8W–0L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%75%24%
3.90
4
Anthea Pang
13W–9L career · 1 line in 2025
1%85%14%
3.85
Jess Sterrett
17W–5L career · 2 lines in 2025
4%92%3%
3.74
Helen Zhang
2W–7L career · 3 lines in 2025
97%3%<1%
3.73
Kelly Bennett
9W–5L career · 2 lines in 2025
8%90%1%
3.69
Marilena Gallotta
21W–12L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%78%22%
3.39
Shan Lu
7W–14L career · no lines in 2025
84%16%<1%
3.36
Jing Gu
14W–29L career · 1 line in 2025
21%79%<1%
3.11
Paulina Gebska
1W–0L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Sandy Shepherd
1W–3L career · 2 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.