Teams

CROW CANYON CC 18AW3.5A

2023 ADULT 18&Over · Women's 3.5

14 players · average NTRP 3.50 / 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 →
Schedule3 played
2023-05-21vs STONEBRAE 18AW3.5AWon 10
W#1 DoublesJill Pfeiffer / Teri Perun vs Jill Petersen / Trish Nornhold6-0, 6-0
2023-05-14vs Bay Club Fremont 18AW3.5ALost 01
L#3 DoublesJill Pfeiffer / Karen Picht vs Rose Keogh / Christine Defilippo3-6, 2-6
2023-04-11vs FREMONT TC 18AW3.5ALost 01
L#3 DoublesJill Pfeiffer / Paula Bellas vs Alicia Barco / Sridevi Parise1-6, 1-6
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 Women's 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 3.30 estimated across 13 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.

3.75
Sonia Barnoff
published
3.69
Heather Houston
published 4
3.51
Miriam DeQuadros
usually #1 Singles 56%, also #2 Singles 25% · published
3.39
Pia Moore
usually #1 Doubles 63%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
3.34
Rattana Graff
published
3.31
Jill Pfeiffer
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
3.28
Emily Amott
published 3.5
3.23
Leda Lim
published
3.21
Lea McSweeney
published
3.16
Dana Kruger
published 3.5
3.15
Cindy Raykiewicz
published 3.5
3.04
Debbie Baker
published 3.5
2.88
Gayle Millington
published 3
Paula Bellas
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.

Lea McSweeney + Debbie Baker3351% games−1.7% vs expected
Cindy Raykiewicz + Dana Kruger134 matchesnot enough data
Lea McSweeney + Emily Amott213 matchesnot enough data
Jill Pfeiffer + Dana Kruger213 matchesnot enough data
Dana Kruger + Emily Amott033 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.

Sonia Barnoff
17W–5L career · no lines in 2023
3%95%3%
3.75
4
Heather Houston
9W–10L career · no lines in 2023
8%92%1%
3.69
Miriam DeQuadros
126W–100L career · 16 lines in 2023
<1%46%54%
3.51
Pia Moore
67W–40L career · 8 lines in 2023
<1%80%19%
3.39
Rattana Graff
4W–17L career · no lines in 2023
89%11%<1%
3.34
Jill Pfeiffer
44W–42L career · 3 lines in 2023
1%92%8%
3.31
3.5
Emily Amott
10W–10L career · no lines in 2023
1%94%5%
3.28
Leda Lim
1W–4L career · no lines in 2023
4%94%2%
3.23
Lea McSweeney
7W–10L career · no lines in 2023
6%93%1%
3.21
3.5
Dana Kruger
9W–15L career · no lines in 2023
11%89%<1%
3.16
3.5
Cindy Raykiewicz
6W–13L career · no lines in 2023
12%88%<1%
3.15
3.5
Debbie Baker
13W–14L career · no lines in 2023
37%63%<1%
3.04
3
Gayle Millington
5W–14L career · no lines in 2023
<1%82%18%
2.88
Paula Bellas
0W–1L career · no lines in 2023
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.