Teams

Tan/Ivester-Terminetters

2026 One Doubles-Winter · 3.5 Women

5 players · average NTRP 3.50 / SOUTHWEST WASHINGTON

View scouting list →
Schedule8 played
2026-04-28vs Clarke/Heckman-TheOnesWon 10
W#1 DoublesKye Paik / Mary Sheryll Tan vs Wendy Clarke / Melissa Heckman7-5, 6-4
2026-04-20vs Ghambari-Unicorn QuartetLost 01
L#1 DoublesJennifer Ivester / Mary Sheryll Tan vs Jeanne Cubanski / Monica Ghambari1-6, 3-6
2026-04-10vs Dizon-Double TroubleLost 01
L#1 DoublesMary Sheryll Tan / Kye Paik vs Chun Saul / Carol Peebles5-7, 4-6
2026-03-06vs Hudson-3 Non Blondes + 1 Sassy OneLost 01
L#1 DoublesHA NGUYEN / Clare Cadiz vs Tamara Rosenbloom / Megan Dempsey3-6, 0-6
2026-02-22vs NeeleyWon 10
W#1 DoublesHA NGUYEN / Clare Cadiz vs Lori Neeley / Erika Sagle6-4, 6-2
2026-02-20vs Washington-Smooth BallzWon 10
W#1 DoublesJennifer Ivester / Mary Sheryll Tan vs Tiffany Washington / Elizabeth Barnes6-2, 6-0
2026-02-16vs Belous-3.5WLost 01
L#1 DoublesClare Cadiz / Jennifer Ivester vs Karin Mattson / Erika Mariani7-5, 4-6, 0-1
2026-02-08vs SeeleyWon 10
W#1 DoublesHA NGUYEN / Kye Paik vs Ashley Louie / Jullie Seeley6-2, 2-6, 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 3.5 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 3.40 estimated across 5 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
Jennifer Ivester
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.44
Kye Paik
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.42
HA NGUYEN
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.36
Mary Sheryll Tan
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.23
Clare Cadiz
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
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.

Mary Sheryll Tan + Kye Paik19760% games+5.3% vs expected
Clare Cadiz + Jennifer Ivester3257% games+4.0% vs expected
Mary Sheryll Tan + Jennifer Ivester181350% games−2.2% vs expected
Clare Cadiz + HA NGUYEN3348% games−4.4% vs expected
Jennifer Ivester + Kye Paik5452% games−7.4% vs expected
Clare Cadiz + Mary Sheryll Tan224 matchesnot enough data
Mary Sheryll Tan + HA NGUYEN303 matchesnot enough data
Jennifer Ivester + HA NGUYEN213 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
Jennifer Ivester
62W–70L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%39%61%
3.54
3.5
Kye Paik
39W–16L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%66%34%
3.44
3.5
HA NGUYEN
78W–48L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%72%28%
3.42
Mary Sheryll Tan
106W–65L career · 4 lines in 2026
1%84%16%
3.36
3.5
Clare Cadiz
78W–80L career · 3 lines in 2026
5%92%3%
3.23

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.