Teams

SFV-Volley Vixens/Nold & Orwin

2025 SoCal Doubles 18 SFV Fall WD · SFV WD - 3.0 Women

22 players · average NTRP 3.10 / 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
2025-12-02vs SFV-Ralley Girls/D HopeWon 10
W#1 DoublesDeborah Chediak / Marah Hogendorn vs Jennifer Zharinova / Nicole Romanelli6-0, 6-3
W#1 DoublesPenny Oxciano / Salisa Wagner vs Maarit Fenwick / Christine Kim6-4, 6-3
W#2 DoublesRhea Smith / Marah Hogendorn vs Debbi Dixon / Angie Wu6-0, 6-1
2025-11-04vs SFV-LLW-FLoBs/H Um & GalvagniLost 01
L#1 DoublesAngelina Smith / Salisa Wagner vs Stefani Galvagni / Chelle Farquhar4-6, 6-2, 0-1
2025-10-21vs SFV-Love All Around/M BrownLost 01
L#1 DoublesJennifer Orwin / Salisa Wagner vs Ida Kim / Mariam Brown3-6, 7-5, 1-0
2025-10-17vs SFV-Love All Around/M BrownLost 01
L#1 DoublesAngelina Smith / Lisa Vaughn vs Nina Keihani / Joyce Glasberg4-6, 6-4, 0-1
L#1 DoublesKindra Raymond / Jennifer Orwin vs Maggie Taylor / Tracy Verna6-1, 6-7, 0-1
L#2 DoublesCheryl Stolarski / Sahar Khedher vs Robyn Olyphant / Allison Lambert0-6, 6-7
W#3 DoublesPatty Connolly / Alexis Pablos vs Christina Kasendorf / Stacey Rosenbaum6-1, 3-6, 1-0
2025-09-23vs SFV-Ralley Girls/D HopeWon 20
W#1 DoublesDeborah Chediak / Salisa Wagner vs Venita Ryan / Renee Volpei7-5, 3-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesMarah Hogendorn / Kindra Raymond vs Jennifer Waugh / Nicole Romanelli6-2, 6-3
W#1 DoublesAngelina Smith / Lisa Vaughn vs Carolyn Newsome / Kelly Fredrickson6-2, 6-1
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 SFV WD - 3.0 Women 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 2.80 estimated across 18 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.

3.42
Marah Hogendorn
usually #1 Doubles 63%, also #2 Doubles 38% · published 3.5
3.34
Lisa Vaughn
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.18
Salisa Wagner
usually #3 Doubles 44%, also #1 Doubles 44% · published 3.5
3.16
Jennifer Orwin
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.15
Deborah Chediak
published 3
3.03
Angelina Smith
published 3
2.89
Milan Aslani
published
2.82
Kindra Raymond
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.79
Linda Bryski
published
2.75
Cheryl Stolarski
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
Caroline Nold
published 3
2.66
2.65
Alexis Pablos
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.63
Penny Oxciano
published
2.62
Sahar Khedher
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.40
Leith O'Leary
published
2.31
Patty Connolly
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.28
Erica Moore-Burton
published 2.5
2.26
Kimberly Pearlman
published
Jonae Fedors
published
Nicole Emmons
published
Rhea Smith
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.

Angelina Smith + Deborah Chediak5068% games+16.4% vs expected
Jennifer Orwin + Deborah Chediak10459% games+5.9% vs expected
Jennifer Orwin + Sahar Khedher4156% games−2.2% vs expected
Salisa Wagner + Lisa Vaughn9073% gamesnot enough data
Linda Bryski + Sahar Khedher224 matchesnot enough data
Sahar Khedher + Kindra Raymond134 matchesnot enough data
Milan Aslani + Deborah Chediak224 matchesnot enough data
Frederique Salomon + Linda Bryski213 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.

3.5
Marah Hogendorn
39W–15L career · 8 lines in 2025
<1%74%26%
3.42
3.5
Lisa Vaughn
67W–36L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%88%11%
3.34
3.5
Salisa Wagner
66W–62L career · 9 lines in 2025
8%91%1%
3.18
Jennifer Orwin
32W–15L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%11%89%
3.16
3
Deborah Chediak
30W–16L career · no lines in 2025
<1%13%87%
3.15
3
Angelina Smith
14W–11L career · no lines in 2025
<1%41%59%
3.03
Milan Aslani
15W–18L career · no lines in 2025
<1%79%21%
2.89
Kindra Raymond
9W–17L career · 1 line in 2025
1%91%8%
2.82
Linda Bryski
8W–6L career · no lines in 2025
1%93%5%
2.79
3
Cheryl Stolarski
5W–10L career · 1 line in 2025
3%95%3%
2.75
3
Caroline Nold
0W–1L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
3
Frederique Salomon
11W–12L career · no lines in 2025
11%88%<1%
2.66
3
Alexis Pablos
2W–4L career · type S · 1 line in 2025
13%87%<1%
2.65
Penny Oxciano
8W–19L career · no lines in 2025
16%84%<1%
2.63
Sahar Khedher
10W–13L career · 1 line in 2025
18%82%<1%
2.62
Leith O'Leary
1W–4L career · no lines in 2025
78%22%<1%
2.40
Patty Connolly
3W–5L career · 1 line in 2025
0%93%7%
2.31
2.5
Erica Moore-Burton
3W–5L career · no lines in 2025
0%96%4%
2.28
Kimberly Pearlman
1W–10L career · no lines in 2025
0%97%3%
2.26
Jonae Fedors
0W–2L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Nicole Emmons
0W–1L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Rhea Smith
1W–0L career · no 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.