Teams

PLEASANTON CW8.5A

2025 COMBO · Women 8.5

15 players · average NTRP 4.25 / NO. 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 →

Flight standings for Women 8.5 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 3.92 estimated across 15 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.

4.13
Val Lacommare
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
4.13
Caryn Lai
published 4.5
4.07
Maddie Thomas
usually #1 Doubles 80%, also #3 Doubles 20% · published
4.06
Arwa Kaddoura
usually #3 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 4
4.02
Karlene Steelman
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.98
Kal Peters
published
3.96
Laura Norden
usually #2 Doubles 33%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
3.96
Traci Krueger
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.96
Margaret Harrison
usually #2 Doubles 40%, also #3 Doubles 30% · published
3.93
Allyson Berry
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
3.89
Sharon Ressa
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.88
Puja Mukherjee
published
3.82
Laurie Radanovich
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.69
Heather Houston
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.34
Sarah Russell
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.

Margaret Harrison + Laurie Radanovich11465% games+2.0% vs expected
Traci Krueger + Laurie Radanovich7164% games+1.0% vs expected
Maddie Thomas + Margaret Harrison3251% games−2.9% vs expected
Traci Krueger + Margaret Harrison6065% gamesnot enough data
Sharon Ressa + Laurie Radanovich224 matchesnot enough data
Val Lacommare + Kal Peters123 matchesnot enough data
Sharon Ressa + Traci Krueger303 matchesnot enough data
Puja Mukherjee + Karlene Steelman213 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.

Val Lacommare
4W–3L career · 1 line in 2025
16%84%<1%
4.13
4.5
Caryn Lai
7W–3L career · no lines in 2025
16%84%<1%
4.13
Maddie Thomas
61W–18L career · 5 lines in 2025
<1%29%71%
4.07
4
Arwa Kaddoura
54W–17L career · 4 lines in 2025
<1%32%68%
4.06
Karlene Steelman
14W–13L career · 2 lines in 2025
44%56%<1%
4.02
Kal Peters
1W–8L career · no lines in 2025
57%43%<1%
3.98
Laura Norden
11W–22L career · 3 lines in 2025
61%39%<1%
3.96
Traci Krueger
33W–6L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%61%39%
3.96
Margaret Harrison
325W–140L career · 10 lines in 2025
<1%62%38%
3.96
4.5
Allyson Berry
0W–4L career · 1 line in 2025
70%30%<1%
3.93
Sharon Ressa
19W–7L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%81%19%
3.89
Puja Mukherjee
13W–17L career · no lines in 2025
82%18%<1%
3.88
Laurie Radanovich
44W–12L career · 1 line in 2025
1%91%8%
3.82
4
Heather Houston
9W–10L career · 1 line in 2025
8%92%1%
3.69
Sarah Russell
10W–16L career · 1 line in 2025
89%11%<1%
3.34

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.