Teams

Dare Doubles

Fire & Ice 2024 - NA · Fire & Ice 4.0 Division

8 players · average NTRP 4.12 / TEXAS

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2024-12-08vs Racq PacqWon 30
W#1 DoublesEdna Mendoza / Jessica Garza vs Anita Moore / Hazel Manjarris6-4, 7-5
W#2 DoublesXochitl Mendoza / Cindy Robledo vs Stacy Hinze / Stephanie Hastings6-3, 6-1
W#3 DoublesAngela Avila / Rebeca Gomez Valls vs Jonna Davidson / Nikki Cortinas6-0, 6-3
2024-12-06vs FlamethrowersWon 21
W#1 DoublesBrenda Cozar / Xochitl Mendoza vs Terrie Butcher / Candice Hitt6-0, 6-3
L#2 DoublesCynthia Pope / Rebeca Gomez Valls vs Sara Ramirez / Mollie Garcia7-6, 5-7, 0-1
W#3 DoublesJessica Garza / Edna Mendoza vs Tami Wheeler / Toni Hakim6-2, 6-1
2024-12-06vs Chili PeppersWon 30
W#1 DoublesBrenda Cozar / Angela Avila vs Audra Worrich / Carlisle Swann2-6, 7-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesJessica Garza / Cindy Robledo vs Silvia Suputra / Allyson McCale6-2, 4-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesXochitl Mendoza / Edna Mendoza vs Tammy Foster / Callie Musselman6-1, 6-2
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 Fire & Ice 4.0 Division 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 3.93 estimated across 6 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.

4.09
Edna Mendoza
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
4.06
Angela Avila
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 4.5
3.98
Cynthia Pope
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.96
Xochitl Mendoza
usually #1 Doubles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.83
Cindy Robledo
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.66
Brenda Cozar
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
Jessica Garza
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
Rebeca Gomez Valls
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · 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.

Cindy Robledo + Xochitl Mendoza314 matchesnot enough data
Edna Mendoza + Xochitl Mendoza404 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.

Edna Mendoza
11W–0L career · 3 lines in 2024
<1%26%74%
4.09
4.5
Angela Avila
22W–5L career · 2 lines in 2024
34%65%<1%
4.06
4
Cynthia Pope
15W–3L career · 1 line in 2024
<1%56%44%
3.98
Xochitl Mendoza
10W–1L career · 3 lines in 2024
<1%60%40%
3.96
4
Cindy Robledo
23W–7L career · 2 lines in 2024
1%88%11%
3.83
4
Brenda Cozar
8W–1L career · type S · 2 lines in 2024
13%87%1%
3.66
Jessica Garza
3W–0L career · 3 lines in 2024
not enough data
Rebeca Gomez Valls
1W–1L career · 2 lines in 2024
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.