Teams

SGV Mo Better Tennis - DeRosa - WN/SA8

2022 Tri-Level League - San Gabriel Valley · SGV - Women 3.0

16 players · average NTRP 3.35 / SO.CALIFORNIA

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
L#3 DoublesSandy Mandel / Diep Ho vs Jackie Arony / Katherine Loevinger1-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesPauline Mauro / Sandy Mandel vs Sanja Morris / Andrea Fruits0-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesPauline Mauro / Sandy Mandel vs Christina Burghard / Michelle Choug2-6, 0-6
L#3 DoublesFatima Huezo / Sandy Mandel vs Pamela Girard / Alice Markowski1-6, 1-6
2022-07-10Lost 01
L#1 DoublesGloria Ziperovich / Diane Quan vs Elizabeth Hall / Summer Shelton2-6, 5-7
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 SGV - Women 3.0 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 3.15 estimated across 14 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.

3.74
Kelly Moss
published
3.74
Satsuki Yamashita
published
3.73
Roseann DeRosa
usually #1 Doubles 57%, also #2 Doubles 43% · published 4
3.64
Gloria Ziperovich
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.28
Chia Chi Tsai
published 3.5
3.26
Diane Quan
published 3.5
3.23
Shaheen Plunier
published
3.18
Sandy Mandel
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.15
Claire Gibbs
published 3.5
2.93
Stacy Ball
published 3
2.90
Diep Ho
published 3
2.63
Pauline Mauro
published
2.39
2.26
Sandra Vartanian
published
Fatima Huezo
published 2.5
Robin Fishman
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.

Roseann DeRosa + Gloria Ziperovich9354% games+6.9% vs expected
Kelly Moss + Satsuki Yamashita224 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.

Kelly Moss
8W–8L career · no lines in 2022
3%94%2%
3.74
Satsuki Yamashita
4W–3L career · no lines in 2022
3%94%2%
3.74
4
Roseann DeRosa
162W–106L career · 7 lines in 2022
4%94%2%
3.73
4
Gloria Ziperovich
81W–81L career · 1 line in 2022
14%86%<1%
3.64
3.5
Chia Chi Tsai
6W–3L career · no lines in 2022
2%94%5%
3.28
3.5
Diane Quan
6W–13L career · no lines in 2022
2%95%3%
3.26
Shaheen Plunier
6W–8L career · no lines in 2022
4%94%2%
3.23
3.5
Sandy Mandel
70W–85L career · 4 lines in 2022
9%91%1%
3.18
3.5
Claire Gibbs
6W–14L career · no lines in 2022
12%88%<1%
3.15
3
Stacy Ball
131W–150L career · no lines in 2022
<1%70%30%
2.93
3
Diep Ho
20W–16L career · no lines in 2022
<1%77%23%
2.90
Pauline Mauro
7W–18L career · no lines in 2022
17%83%<1%
2.63
3
Ganga Chandramohan
2W–12L career · type A · no lines in 2022
81%19%<1%
2.39
Sandra Vartanian
0W–9L career · no lines in 2022
97%3%<1%
2.26
2.5
Fatima Huezo
0W–4L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Robin Fishman
0W–2L career · no lines in 2022
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.