Teams

SoCal/Chiu/18&Over5.0W

2026 Adult 18 & Over Spring - SD WE · SD

14 players · average NTRP 5.00 / SAN DIEGO

View scouting list →
Schedule8 played
2026-06-28vs SD 5.0 PBTC / Lee- TepWon 21
W#1 DoublesLeire Martinez Barredo / Jami Jones vs Jana McCord / Kari Katzenmeier2-6, 6-4, 1-0
W#1 SinglesDebbie Spence-Nasim vs Tatiana Larina6-2, 6-4
L#2 DoublesClaudia Roehr / Brittany Swenson vs Deborah Lee-Tep / Hannah Holladay2-6, 1-6
2026-06-20vs SD 5.0 PBTC / Lee- TepWon 20
W#1 DoublesClaudia Roehr / Millie Yablonicky vs Jenna Boyhan / Kari Katzenmeier6-1, 6-3
W#2 DoublesLeire Martinez Barredo / Grace Yao vs Chau Nguyen / Bettina Olah6-2, 6-3
W#1 DoublesJami Jones / Brittany Swenson vs Lisa Menante / PAOLA DIAZ de REGULES6-1, 6-1
W#1 SinglesDebbie Spence-Nasim vs Bruna Silveira Goncalves6-1, 6-0
L#2 DoublesWileen Chiu / Aesha Patel vs Vivian Lee / Jeyasri Venkatasubramani4-6, 2-6
W#1 DoublesEmily Peterson / Shelby Rubin vs Bruna Silveira Goncalves / Lisa Menante6-3, 6-4
W#1 SinglesJacquelyn Daniel vs Carissa Park0-6, 6-3, 1-0
W#2 DoublesClaudia Roehr / Wileen Chiu vs Vivian Lee / Jeyasri Venkatasubramani7-5, 6-1
W#1 DoublesDebbie Spence-Nasim / Shelby Rubin vs PAOLA DIAZ de REGULES / Ana Seelinger6-2, 6-4
L#1 SinglesJacquelyn Daniel vs Bruna Silveira Goncalves3-6, 6-4, 1-0
W#2 DoublesWendy Caragher / Leire Martinez Barredo vs Vivian Lee / Caroline Emhardt6-2, 6-2
2026-05-02vs SD 5.0 PBTC / Lee- TepSplit 11
L#1 DoublesShelby Rubin / Grace Yao vs Deborah Lee-Tep / Jana McCord4-6, 0-6
W#2 DoublesWileen Chiu / Claudia Roehr vs Tatiana Larina / Bettina Olah3-6, 6-1, 1-0
2026-04-18vs SD 5.0 PBTC / Lee- TepSplit 11
W#1 DoublesMillie Yablonicky / Emily Peterson vs Bettina Olah / Elizabeth Zebian6-3, 6-7, 1-0
L#2 DoublesWileen Chiu / Aesha Patel vs Jennifer Rens / Kari Katzenmeier2-6, 3-6
W#1 DoublesColleen Royal / Millie Yablonicky vs Kristie Alva / Ana Seelinger6-2, 6-3
W#2 DoublesWileen Chiu / Grace Yao vs Caroline Emhardt / Jeyasri Venkatasubramani6-3, 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 standings3 teams · SD
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1SoCal/Chiu/18&Over5.0W8019514154
2SD 5.0 PBTC / Lee- Tep35101430215
3SD 5.0 Miramar College (noon)/ Patel1771736243

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 4.77 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.

5.04
Millie Yablonicky
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 5
5.02
Debbie Spence-Nasim
usually #1 Singles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 5
4.89
Claudia Roehr
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 5
4.89
Jami Jones
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
4.83
Colleen Royal
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 5
4.76
Wileen Chiu
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 5
Emily Peterson
published 5
4.68
Grace Yao
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
4.57
Brittany Swenson
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 5
4.55
Shelby Rubin
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 5
4.45
Aesha Patel
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 5
Jacquelyn Daniel
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
Leire Martinez Barredo
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
Wendy Caragher
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.

Claudia Roehr + Brittany Swenson10364% games+14.8% vs expected
Shelby Rubin + Brittany Swenson4450% games−2.0% vs expected
Claudia Roehr + Wileen Chiu5074% gamesnot enough data
Grace Yao + Wileen Chiu314 matchesnot enough data
Debbie Spence-Nasim + Jami Jones213 matchesnot enough data
Millie Yablonicky + Claudia Roehr303 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.

5
Millie Yablonicky
71W–18L career · 3 lines in 2026
no projection at this level
5.04
5
Debbie Spence-Nasim
12W–1L career · 3 lines in 2026
no projection at this level
5.02
5
Claudia Roehr
125W–33L career · 4 lines in 2026
no projection at this level
4.89
Jami Jones
6W–3L career · 2 lines in 2026
no projection at this level
4.89
5
Colleen Royal
6W–0L career · 1 line in 2026
no projection at this level
4.83
5
Wileen Chiu
38W–21L career · 5 lines in 2026
no projection at this level
4.76
5
Emily Peterson
no matches on record · type S · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Grace Yao
5W–4L career · 3 lines in 2026
no projection at this level
4.68
5
Brittany Swenson
80W–39L career · 2 lines in 2026
no projection at this level
4.57
5
Shelby Rubin
127W–47L career · 3 lines in 2026
no projection at this level
4.55
5
Aesha Patel
0W–6L career · type S · 2 lines in 2026
no projection at this level
4.45
Jacquelyn Daniel
1W–1L career · 2 lines in 2026
not enough data
Leire Martinez Barredo
9W–3L career · 3 lines in 2026
not enough data
Wendy Caragher
3W–0L career · 1 line 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.