SGV Rally Girls-Hawkins-Claremont Club/ Su8
2026 SoCal Doubles 18 & Over - San Gabriel Valley · SGV - Women 3.0
13 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.
Flight standings13 teams · SGV - Women 3.0
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1SGV FLoBS-Hyon-Scholl CYN/SA11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2SGV Rally Girls-Hawkins-Claremont Club/ Su8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 3SGV Queens of the Court-Jones-Arroyo Seco/SU4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 4SGV Hot Tub Tennis Club-Nowacki-WN/TBD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 5SGV Ball Hogs-Yip-Arroyo Seco/SA4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 6SGV Rebelettes-McNulty-Dawson Park/SA2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 7SGV Tennis Addicts Hamilton-S Chang-Arroyo HS-SA8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 8SGV Deuces Wild-Shen-Scholl Cyn-SA1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 9SGV ATCC Phoenix-Woo-ATCC/ SU3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 10SGV Arcadia Aces-Li-Arcadia-SU5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 11SGV Always On the Line-Hong-WN/SA2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 12SGV The XC-Kim-WN/SU8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 13SGV HFA Grand Slam Baddies-Vanda-Downey HS/SA8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.
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 2.82 estimated across 13 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.
Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.
| Kimberly Albright + Sophie Lehman | 5–1 | 68% games | +8.7% vs expected |
| Lisa Hawkins + Kimberly Albright | 6–0 | 60% games | +2.2% vs expected |
| Mary Herbers Eme + Dede Schneider | 2–3 | 47% games | −4.0% vs expected |
| Jill Tomich + Mariana Glovsky | 5–0 | 70% games | not enough data |
| Mary Herbers Eme + Kimberly Albright | 4–0 | 4 matches | not enough data |
| Jill Tomich + Mary Herbers Eme | 0–3 | 3 matches | not enough data |
| Mariana Glovsky + Mary Herbers Eme | 3–0 | 3 matches | not enough data |
| Mary Herbers Eme + Patricia Ash | 2–1 | 3 matches | not enough data |
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.
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.