Teams

SGV LLW Dare Doubles-Flores-WN/SA12

2026 Adult Division - 55 & Over - San Gabriel Valley · SGV - Women 8.0

18 players · average NTRP 4.00 / SO.CALIFORNIA

No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.

View scouting list →
Schedule7 played
L#1 DoublesLINH LEE / Deann McCormick vs Cindi Carter / Debbie Sierra5-7, 2-6
W#1 DoublesHeidi Schuler / Christine Russell vs Kasia Chmielewski / Amy Newhall6-3, 6-7, 1-0
W#2 DoublesElizabeth Rogers / Jeongyean Jang vs Melissa Mazin / Debbie Sierra2-6, 6-3, 1-0
W#3 DoublesDenise Matsumoto / Leslie Croyder vs Sandra Manion / Shari Preiss6-4, 6-4
W#1 DoublesWhitney Johnson / Yu Liu vs Cindi Carter / Adrienne Beauvois7-6, 6-3
L#1 DoublesKhin Aye / Marites Killion vs Cindi Carter / Lorna Kim7-5, 4-6, 0-1
W#2 DoublesDaniela Chung / Jeongyean Jang vs Melissa Mazin / Amy Newhall6-4, 5-2
W#2 DoublesHeidi Schuler / Christine Russell vs Cindi Carter / Melissa Mazin6-2, 6-0
L#1 DoublesTai Sisson / Jasmine M Liu vs Stephanie Perry / Kasia Chmielewski6-7, 4-6
W#2 DoublesJeongyean Jang / Daniela Chung vs Adrienne Beauvois / Sandra Manion6-0, 6-4
W#3 DoublesLINH LEE / Whitney Johnson vs Mindy Schiffman / Lorna Kim6-3, 6-2
W#1 DoublesKhin Aye / Georgia Cano vs Cindi Carter / Melissa Mazin6-3, 6-1
L#2 DoublesElizabeth Rogers / Leslie Croyder vs Kristin McQueen / Karen Vidal0-6, 5-7
W#3 DoublesDeann McCormick / Jasmine M Liu vs Monica Mitchell / Lorna Kim2-6, 6-2, 1-0
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 standings2 teams · SGV - Women 8.0
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1SGV LLW Dare Doubles-Flores-WN/SA126116513156
2SGV Early Bird Specials-Mazin-Flint Cyn/SA121651634234

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 3.80 estimated across 17 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.

4.43
Daniela Chung
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
4.35
Tai Sisson
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 4.5
4.16
Georgia Cano
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
4.15
Heidi Schuler
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 4.5
4.08
Leslie Croyder
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
3.99
Deann McCormick
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4.5
3.89
Anne Marie Risquez-Tomasyan
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.76
Marites Killion
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 4
3.75
Lorene Miller
usually #3 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 4
3.75
Yu Liu
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.60
Khin Aye
usually #3 Doubles 40%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published
3.59
Christine Russell
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.50
LINH LEE
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.44
Elizabeth Rogers
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.42
Jasmine M Liu
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
3.39
Tricia Bregman
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.38
Denise Matsumoto
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
Jeongyean Jang
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.

Heidi Schuler + Tai Sisson7258% gamesnot enough data
Georgia Cano + Denise Matsumoto5076% gamesnot enough data
Daniela Chung + Jeongyean Jang404 matchesnot enough data
Georgia Cano + Christine Russell404 matchesnot enough data
Heidi Schuler + Christine Russell404 matchesnot enough data
Georgia Cano + Khin Aye213 matchesnot enough data
LINH LEE + Jasmine M Liu303 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.

4.5
Daniela Chung
65W–27L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%70%30%
4.43
4.5
Tai Sisson
249W–74L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%87%13%
4.35
4
Georgia Cano
201W–33L career · type A · 1 line in 2026
<1%11%89%
4.16
4.5
Heidi Schuler
117W–78L career · 2 lines in 2026
12%87%<1%
4.15
Leslie Croyder
3W–8L career · 2 lines in 2026
27%73%<1%
4.08
4.5
Deann McCormick
102W–101L career · 3 lines in 2026
53%47%<1%
3.99
4
Anne Marie Risquez-Tomasyan
149W–69L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%81%19%
3.89
4
Marites Killion
115W–68L career · 2 lines in 2026
2%94%3%
3.76
4
Lorene Miller
95W–69L career · 4 lines in 2026
2%95%3%
3.75
Yu Liu
17W–8L career · 1 line in 2026
3%95%3%
3.75
Khin Aye
10W–16L career · 5 lines in 2026
21%78%<1%
3.60
3.5
Christine Russell
51W–20L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%24%76%
3.59
LINH LEE
18W–6L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%48%52%
3.50
3.5
Elizabeth Rogers
22W–9L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%67%32%
3.44
Jasmine M Liu
22W–8L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%74%26%
3.42
3.5
Tricia Bregman
114W–117L career · 6 lines in 2026
<1%81%19%
3.39
3.5
Denise Matsumoto
212W–93L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%81%19%
3.38
Jeongyean Jang
3W–0L career · 3 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.