Teams

SGV Spin Doctors-Lee-Flint CYN-SA4

2025 SoCal FALL Team Singles · SGV - Women 3.0

8 players · average NTRP 3.00 / SO.CALIFORNIA

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 →
Schedule8 played
2025-12-06vs SGV Dare Doubles-Flores-WN/SULost 02
L#1 SinglesTina Lu vs ANALILY PARK5-7, 2-6
L#2 SinglesKatherine Tygart vs Wanyun Zhu5-7, 2-6
L#1 SinglesPauline Mauro vs Su Li1-6, 0-6
L#2 SinglesElizabeth Woo vs Jean Oh1-6, 0-6
W#3 SinglesKatherine Tygart vs Angela Leung6-2, 6-0
2025-11-01vs SGV Deuces Wild-Shen-Scholl/SA11Lost 01
L#3 SinglesRosie Johnston vs Stacey McCarroll3-6, 4-6
2025-10-25vs SGV Dare Doubles-Flores-WN/SUWon 21
L#1 SinglesPauline Mauro vs ANALILY PARK5-7, 2-6
W#2 SinglesTina Lu vs Thaianne Dashti6-0, 6-3
W#3 SinglesRosie Johnston vs Yeiwon Park2-6, 6-2, 1-0
W#1 SinglesKathleen Makarewicz vs Jean Oh6-0, 6-0
W#2 SinglesTina Lu vs Sydney Angrand4-6, 6-4, 1-0
W#3 SinglesKatherine Tygart vs Yuxi Meng6-2, 4-6, 1-0
2025-10-11vs SGV Deuces Wild-Shen-Scholl/SA11Won 21
W#1 SinglesKathleen Makarewicz vs Kaihong Su6-1, 6-3
W#2 SinglesKatherine Tygart vs Stacey McCarroll6-4, 6-4
L#3 SinglesRosie Johnston vs Assel Kudabayeva6-7, 1-6
L#1 SinglesTina Lu vs Julia Arnold4-6, 2-6
L#2 SinglesPauline Mauro vs Alena Ananyeva7-6, 0-6, 0-1
L#3 SinglesElizabeth Woo vs Sydney Angrand0-6, 4-6
2025-09-20vs SGV Deuces Wild-Shen-Scholl/SA11Lost 01
L#1 SinglesPauline Mauro vs Malaya Ho0-6, 1-6
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 3.0 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 2.62 estimated across 7 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.

2.84
Jackie Yi
published 3
2.83
Katherine Tygart
usually #3 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 50% · published
2.74
Elizabeth Woo
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #3 Singles 50% · published
2.62
Pauline Mauro
usually #1 Singles 75%, also #2 Singles 25% · published
2.57
Tina Lu
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 50% · published
2.38
Ganga Chandramohan
published
2.35
Rosie Johnston
usually #3 Singles 100% · published
Kathleen Makarewicz
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
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
Jackie Yi
39W–37L career · no lines in 2025
1%87%12%
2.84
Katherine Tygart
6W–4L career · 4 lines in 2025
1%88%11%
2.83
Elizabeth Woo
9W–9L career · 2 lines in 2025
0%4%96%
2.74
Pauline Mauro
7W–18L career · 4 lines in 2025
19%81%<1%
2.62
Tina Lu
23W–22L career · 4 lines in 2025
0%31%69%
2.57
Ganga Chandramohan
2W–12L career · no lines in 2025
80%20%<1%
2.38
Rosie Johnston
1W–5L career · 3 lines in 2025
87%13%<1%
2.35
Kathleen Makarewicz
8W–2L 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.