Teams

Fair Oaks Controlled Chaos

2026 18 & OVER SPRING WEEKDAY WOMEN · 3.5 Women Monday

27 players · average NTRP 3.44 / TEXAS

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 →
Schedule2 played
2026-05-04vs Serve Me a DoubleLost 23
W#1 DoublesCarrie Ervin / Melanie Rossi vs Elizabeth Fleming / Hanh Tran6-1, 6-1
W#1 SinglesSunnie Alderete vs Patricia Phipps6-4, 6-4
L#2 DoublesSusan Daum / Barbara Vance vs Karen Pozza / Marina Henkes5-7, 2-6
L#2 SinglesChelsea Mills vs Bertie Mzyk4-6, 2-6
L#3 DoublesMonica Slaydon / Natalie Samson vs Sandy Reininger / Susan Townsend7-6, 3-6, 0-1
2026-03-30vs LobstersWon 31
W#1 DoublesCarrie Ervin / Melanie Rossi vs Denise Landon / Valerie Ziegler6-3, 4-6, 1-0
W#1 SinglesChelsea Mills vs Julia Anderson6-2, 1-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesPaula Sachse / Maryann Burdick vs Linda Leavitt / Laura Selig6-3, 6-1
L#3 DoublesMichelle Pettit / Christa Maxwell vs Amy Steves / Betty Lansdale3-6, 6-7
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 Monday 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 3.23 estimated across 27 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.

3.60
Melanie Rossi
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.52
Alison Leonard
published 3.5
3.44
Danielle Campbell
published 3.5
3.44
Maryann Burdick
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.39
Cheryl Lozano
published 3.5
3.38
Carrie Ervin
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.37
Sunnie Alderete
usually #1 Singles 67%, also #2 Singles 33% · published
3.36
Yvonne Uhl
published
3.36
Amy Hall
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.34
Barbara Vance
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.33
Krista Obregon
published
3.31
Susan Daum
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
3.30
Paula Sachse
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.27
Michelle Pettit
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.18
Michelle Sagray
published
3.17
Celeste Hayes
published 3.5
3.17
Jordan Waldrip
published
3.15
Jaime Barrera
published
3.13
Kelly Grossman
published
3.11
Stephanie Fargo
published
3.11
Christa Maxwell
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.07
Chelsea Mills
usually #1 Doubles 43%, also #1 Singles 29% · published 3
3.01
Natalie Samson
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
2.99
Sarah Faulkenberry
published
2.96
Monica Slaydon
usually #2 Doubles 33%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
2.92
Jennifer Yantis
published
2.86
Johanna Suttle
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.

Monica Slaydon + Natalie Samson6165% games+17.6% vs expected
Natalie Samson + Chelsea Mills5356% games+10.3% vs expected
Barbara Vance + Paula Sachse3250% games+6.4% vs expected
Maryann Burdick + Paula Sachse9362% games+5.7% vs expected
Kelly Grossman + Michelle Pettit5454% games+5.0% vs expected
Barbara Vance + Yvonne Uhl7163% games+4.6% vs expected
Michelle Pettit + Susan Daum4351% games+1.3% vs expected
Melanie Rossi + Carrie Ervin5552% games−4.0% vs expected
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.

Melanie Rossi
22W–15L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%23%77%
3.60
3.5
Alison Leonard
3W–9L career · no lines in 2026
<1%44%56%
3.52
3.5
Danielle Campbell
15W–8L career · no lines in 2026
<1%67%33%
3.44
Maryann Burdick
43W–28L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%67%33%
3.44
3.5
Cheryl Lozano
15W–4L career · no lines in 2026
<1%79%21%
3.39
3.5
Carrie Ervin
16W–13L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%80%19%
3.38
Sunnie Alderete
6W–24L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%83%17%
3.37
Yvonne Uhl
30W–25L career · no lines in 2026
<1%83%17%
3.36
3.5
Amy Hall
19W–15L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%83%16%
3.36
3.5
Barbara Vance
26W–18L career · 1 line in 2026
1%87%13%
3.34
Krista Obregon
16W–16L career · no lines in 2026
1%88%11%
3.33
Susan Daum
17W–20L career · 2 lines in 2026
1%90%9%
3.31
Paula Sachse
27W–17L career · 1 line in 2026
2%91%8%
3.30
Michelle Pettit
34W–20L career · 1 line in 2026
3%92%5%
3.27
Michelle Sagray
14W–11L career · no lines in 2026
10%89%1%
3.18
3.5
Celeste Hayes
5W–5L career · no lines in 2026
11%88%1%
3.17
Jordan Waldrip
2W–4L career · no lines in 2026
11%88%1%
3.17
Jaime Barrera
5W–6L career · no lines in 2026
14%85%1%
3.15
Kelly Grossman
13W–24L career · no lines in 2026
17%82%<1%
3.13
Stephanie Fargo
1W–6L career · no lines in 2026
21%78%<1%
3.11
3.5
Christa Maxwell
7W–10L career · 1 line in 2026
22%78%<1%
3.11
3
Chelsea Mills
29W–11L career · 7 lines in 2026
<1%30%70%
3.07
Natalie Samson
25W–21L career · 6 lines in 2026
<1%46%54%
3.01
Sarah Faulkenberry
5W–6L career · no lines in 2026
53%47%<1%
2.99
Monica Slaydon
17W–9L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%61%39%
2.96
Jennifer Yantis
7W–10L career · no lines in 2026
<1%73%27%
2.92
Johanna Suttle
8W–5L career · no lines in 2026
<1%83%16%
2.86

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.