Teams

MILLS COLLEGE CW9.5A

2025 COMBO · Women 9.5

19 players · average NTRP 4.50 / 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 9.5 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 4.21 estimated across 16 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.

4.55
Kathleen Haigood
published
4.43
Sabrina Thong
published
4.41
Riki Sorenson
published
4.34
Elaine Smith
published
4.33
Signy Judd
published
4.25
Jennifer Essner
published
4.25
Jessica Kim
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
4.21
Petra Reinecke
published
4.18
Leone Patterson
published
4.18
Helen Potter
published
4.15
Caryn Lai
published 4.5
4.09
Eva Spindler
published
4.08
Cynthia Abel
published 4.5
4.04
Katy Keim
published
4.04
Jenna Deboisblanc
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.78
Mai Angsupanich
published
Lilana Spindler
published
Sheila Eversole
published
Susan Lundstrom
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.

Jennifer Essner + Katy Keim4170% games+13.1% vs expected
Petra Reinecke + Helen Potter314 matchesnot enough data
Elaine Smith + Sabrina Thong123 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.

Kathleen Haigood
9W–2L career · no lines in 2025
no projection at this level
4.55
Sabrina Thong
1W–7L career · no lines in 2025
no projection at this level
4.43
Riki Sorenson
1W–5L career · no lines in 2025
no projection at this level
4.41
Elaine Smith
20W–7L career · no lines in 2025
1%87%12%
4.34
Signy Judd
4W–6L career · no lines in 2025
no projection at this level
4.33
Jennifer Essner
14W–10L career · no lines in 2025
4%93%4%
4.25
Jessica Kim
32W–15L career · 2 lines in 2025
4%93%3%
4.25
Petra Reinecke
10W–6L career · no lines in 2025
7%91%2%
4.21
Leone Patterson
22W–13L career · no lines in 2025
9%89%1%
4.18
Helen Potter
5W–3L career · no lines in 2025
9%89%1%
4.18
4.5
Caryn Lai
7W–3L career · no lines in 2025
14%85%1%
4.15
Eva Spindler
9W–3L career · no lines in 2025
26%74%<1%
4.09
4.5
Cynthia Abel
19W–10L career · no lines in 2025
29%71%<1%
4.08
Katy Keim
10W–5L career · no lines in 2025
37%63%<1%
4.04
Jenna Deboisblanc
7W–6L career · 1 line in 2025
39%61%<1%
4.04
Mai Angsupanich
8W–13L career · no lines in 2025
<1%2%98%
3.78
Lilana Spindler
2W–3L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Sheila Eversole
1W–1L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Susan Lundstrom
1W–1L career · no 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.