Teams

SGV Dare Doubles-Flores-WN/SA

2025 SoCal FALL Team Singles · SGV - Women 3.5

7 players · average NTRP 3.40 / 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 →
Schedule8 played
L#2 SinglesPam Barbato vs Kris Gruaz1-6, 5-7
L#3 SinglesGINA SKIBAR vs Grace Parker1-6, 3-6
2025-12-13vs SGV FLoBS-Willaman-Scholl CYN/SU5Lost 01
L#1 SinglesANALILY PARK vs Alexis Halejian6-7, 0-6
W#2 SinglesJill Jobran vs Julia Arnold6-1, 6-0
W#3 SinglesPam Barbato vs Claudina Mercado7-6, 6-0
W#2 SinglesSandra Zane vs Terry Meng6-2, 7-5
W#3 SinglesGINA SKIBAR vs Angeline Chow2-6, 7-5, 1-0
L#2 SinglesGINA SKIBAR vs Carla Denker1-6, 2-6
W#3 SinglesJill Jobran vs N/A6-0, 6-0
2025-10-26vs SGV FLoBS-Willaman-Scholl CYN/SU5Won 20
W#1 SinglesPam Barbato vs Alana Vormehr6-1, 6-1
W#3 SinglesSandra Zane vs Nancy Wong-Thomas6-3, 7-5
2025-10-12vs SGV Chow Fun- Chow-Arroyo High-SU10Split 11
W#2 SinglesPam Barbato vs Claudina Mercado6-3, 6-3
L#3 SinglesGINA SKIBAR vs Bu Kum Kim4-6, 6-4, 0-1
L#1 SinglesPam Barbato vs Minnie Ingersoll1-6, 2-6
L#3 SinglesSandra Zane vs Danette Stein6-7, 0-6
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 SGV - Women 3.5 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 3.28 estimated across 6 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
Jill Jobran
usually #3 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 50% · published 3.5
3.46
Nancy Ray
published
3.31
Pam Barbato
usually #1 Singles 40%, also #2 Singles 40% · published 3.5
3.22
Rebecca Berman
published
3.11
GINA SKIBAR
usually #3 Singles 75%, also #2 Singles 25% · published 3.5
3.03
Sandra Zane
usually #3 Singles 67%, also #2 Singles 33% · published 3.5
ANALILY PARK
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 3
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.

Sandra Zane + Pam Barbato2642% gamesnot enough data
GINA SKIBAR + Jill Jobran213 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
Jill Jobran
171W–46L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%39%61%
3.54
Nancy Ray
11W–11L career · no lines in 2025
<1%61%39%
3.46
3.5
Pam Barbato
100W–64L career · 5 lines in 2025
1%90%9%
3.31
Rebecca Berman
10W–7L career · no lines in 2025
6%92%2%
3.22
3.5
GINA SKIBAR
114W–80L career · 4 lines in 2025
22%78%<1%
3.11
3.5
Sandra Zane
146W–141L career · 3 lines in 2025
42%58%<1%
3.03
3
ANALILY PARK
2W–4L career · 3 lines in 2025
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.