Teams

LA - Downtown Aces 3.5

2026 SoCal Doubles - LA · LA - Women 3.5

11 players · average NTRP 3.17 / 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 →
Flight standings13 teams · LA - Women 3.5
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1LA - Queen Anne 3.5W000000
2LA - Santa Monica Tennis Collective000000
3LA - Backhanded Compliments 3.5000000
4LA - Cheviot Hills000000
5LA - Femme Bandits000000
6LA - Canyon Coyotes Vermont000000
7LA - Canyon Coyotes Riverside000000
8LA - Lucky at Love000000
9LA - Downtown Aces 3.5000000
10LA - WeHo Slicers 3.5000000
11LA - Griffin Club 3.5W000000
12LA - PrimeTime Too000000
13Fine Young Can of Balls000000

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 2.93 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.

3.20
Lisa Yu
published
3.13
Claire Gibbs
published 3.5
3.11
Tamar Stevens
published
3.08
Gillian Smith
published
3.05
Mia Babilonia
published
3.05
Lisa Endsley
published
2.88
Fariba Navid
published
2.73
Johanna Baumann
published
2.64
2.44
Andrea Crum
published 3
Meredith Levine
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.

Claire Gibbs + Johanna Baumann123 matchesnot enough data
Tamar Stevens + Lisa Yu213 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.

Lisa Yu
6W–2L career · no lines in 2026
8%91%2%
3.20
3.5
Claire Gibbs
6W–14L career · no lines in 2026
17%82%<1%
3.13
Tamar Stevens
2W–5L career · no lines in 2026
21%79%<1%
3.11
Gillian Smith
4W–9L career · no lines in 2026
<1%30%70%
3.08
Mia Babilonia
6W–15L career · no lines in 2026
0%<1%>99%
3.05
Lisa Endsley
2W–4L career · no lines in 2026
36%64%<1%
3.05
Fariba Navid
5W–7L career · no lines in 2026
80%20%<1%
2.88
Johanna Baumann
9W–18L career · no lines in 2026
5%92%3%
2.73
3
Christina Buckley
1W–6L career · no lines in 2026
16%84%1%
2.64
3
Andrea Crum
1W–5L career · type A · no lines in 2026
66%34%<1%
2.44
Meredith Levine
2W–0L 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.