Teams

SD 3.0 Peninsula TC (Sat 2:30)/ Enwright

2026 SoCal Fall Doubles WE- San Diego · SD Women 3.0 GNO

11 players · average NTRP 2.86 / SAN DIEGO

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 standings10 teams · SD Women 3.0 GNO
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1SD 3.0 BTC Sat Smashers (Sat 2:30PM)/ Gyure000000
2SD 3.0 Mtn View (Sat 2:30)/ Dunlap000000
3SD 3.0 Peninsula TC (Sat 2:30)/ Oliva000000
4SD 3.0 SDTRC (Sat 2:30)/ Kleiner000000
5SD 3.0 SDTRC (Sat 2:30)/ Ross000000
6SD 3.0 LJTC (Sat 2:30)/ Covello000000
7SD 3.0 Peninsula TC (Sat 2:30)/ Enwright000000
8SD 3.0 Peninsula TC (Sat 2:30)/ Hagstrom000000
9SD 3.0 Balboa TC (Sat 2:30)/ La Crue000000
10SD 3.0 Peninsula TC (noon)/ Nguyen000000

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 2.59 estimated across 9 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.

2.92
Maria Bargeman
published 3
2.90
May Salyards
published 3
2.70
2.58
Kate Paradis
published
2.55
Sarah Enwright
published
2.48
Holly Amaya
published 3
2.44
Karen Mccowen
published
2.43
2.28
Danielle Stroud
published 2.5
April Valentine
published 2.5
Kornelia Pak
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.

Danielle Stroud + Kate Paradis224 matchesnot enough data
May Salyards + Maria Bargeman314 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.

3
Maria Bargeman
3W–4L career · type S · no lines in 2026
<1%72%28%
2.92
3
May Salyards
23W–9L career · no lines in 2026
<1%77%23%
2.90
3
Gabrielle Schefer
4W–11L career · no lines in 2026
6%93%1%
2.70
Kate Paradis
7W–5L career · no lines in 2026
28%72%<1%
2.58
Sarah Enwright
16W–24L career · no lines in 2026
36%64%<1%
2.55
3
Holly Amaya
25W–17L career · no lines in 2026
56%44%<1%
2.48
Karen Mccowen
5W–4L career · no lines in 2026
66%34%<1%
2.44
3
Gabrielle Zybelman
4W–5L career · type A · no lines in 2026
70%30%<1%
2.43
2.5
Danielle Stroud
4W–7L career · no lines in 2026
0%95%5%
2.28
2.5
April Valentine
7W–9L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Kornelia Pak
16W–22L career · no lines 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.