Teams

CC Avila Sainsbury

2026 USTA CC Summer Adult Tri-Level 18 & OVER · CC Low Tri-Level Adult 18 & Over

21 players · average NTRP 3.50 / SO.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
2026-08-28vs CC SLOCC StrongWon 21
W#1 DoublesJiao Hua Zhou / Rhianna Henderson vs Sarah Pedersen / Kristin Newsom6-4, 6-3
W#2 DoublesLori Sherry / Elise Beem vs Camila Strong / Jean Kennedy7-6, 6-3
L#3 DoublesLynnly Sainsbury / Maren Linkugel vs Tessa Kotch / Michelle Quibell0-6, 0-6
2026-08-22vs CC SMCC MealsWon 21
W#1 DoublesShannon Dossa / Jessica Blackburn vs Jen Haskell / Gail Edry6-2, 7-5
W#2 DoublesCarolyn Doud / Karen Gordon vs Lorena Torres / Teresa Schmutte6-2, 6-2
L#3 DoublesAmber Petit / Jennifer Rainey vs Teresa Klostermann / Elia Santiago0-6, 2-6
2026-08-16vs CC MBHS Court QueensLost 03
L#1 DoublesShannon Dossa / Michelle Adam vs Daisy Dustan / Hanna Smith3-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesColleen Moss / Deborah VANDENBERG vs Aryn Jorgensen / Kelli Salter2-6, 4-6
L#3 DoublesMegan Kostelnik / Marie Loughead vs Morri Nash / Erin Sjoholm6-3, 0-6, 0-1
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 standings5 teams · CC Low Tri-Level Adult 18 & Over
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1CC SLOCC Strong2051236
2CC MBHS Court Queens1142550
3CC SMCC Meals1124864
4CC Paso McKenzie0112531
5CC Avila Sainsbury0103634

Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.

See the full flight, with every team’s record

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 3.20 estimated across 21 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.

3.81
Rhianna Henderson
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.76
Shannon Dossa
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.57
Jiao Hua Zhou
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.55
Michelle Adam
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.50
Francie Doak
published 4
3.50
Paula Olson
published
3.35
Carolyn Doud
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.33
Lori Sherry
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.28
Deborah VANDENBERG
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.28
Karen Gordon
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.23
Elise Beem
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.18
Lori Bickel
published
3.07
Marie Loughead
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.06
Colleen Moss
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
2.98
Kanako Nakajima
published
2.95
Ali Atkinson
published 3
2.89
Amber Petit
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.84
Maren Linkugel
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.77
Megan Kostelnik
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.76
Jennifer Rainey
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.62
Lynnly Sainsbury
usually #3 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.

Ali Atkinson + Elise Beem5351% games+2.6% vs expected
Jiao Hua Zhou + Shannon Dossa4261% games+1.4% vs expected
Paula Olson + Lori Sherry6357% games+0.4% vs expected
Karen Gordon + Deborah VANDENBERG4346% games+0.0% vs expected
Lori Bickel + Deborah VANDENBERG314 matchesnot enough data
Deborah VANDENBERG + Rhianna Henderson224 matchesnot enough data
Deborah VANDENBERG + Colleen Moss224 matchesnot enough data
Shannon Dossa + Rhianna Henderson404 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.

Rhianna Henderson
22W–3L career · 1 line in 2026
1%90%8%
3.81
Shannon Dossa
35W–31L career · 2 lines in 2026
3%92%5%
3.76
Jiao Hua Zhou
20W–8L career · 1 line in 2026
31%69%<1%
3.57
4
Michelle Adam
67W–61L career · 1 line in 2026
35%65%<1%
3.55
4
Francie Doak
89W–135L career · no lines in 2026
49%51%<1%
3.50
Paula Olson
31W–10L career · no lines in 2026
<1%49%51%
3.50
3.5
Carolyn Doud
6W–10L career · 1 line in 2026
1%85%14%
3.35
Lori Sherry
12W–9L career · 1 line in 2026
1%88%11%
3.33
3.5
Deborah VANDENBERG
24W–14L career · 1 line in 2026
2%92%6%
3.28
Karen Gordon
28W–28L career · 1 line in 2026
2%92%6%
3.28
Elise Beem
9W–7L career · 1 line in 2026
5%92%3%
3.23
Lori Bickel
8W–12L career · no lines in 2026
10%89%1%
3.18
Marie Loughead
7W–11L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%30%70%
3.07
3.5
Colleen Moss
8W–6L career · 1 line in 2026
33%67%<1%
3.06
Kanako Nakajima
17W–8L career · no lines in 2026
<1%55%45%
2.98
3
Ali Atkinson
5W–6L career · no lines in 2026
<1%64%36%
2.95
3
Amber Petit
2W–2L career · type S · 1 line in 2026
<1%78%22%
2.89
Maren Linkugel
1W–8L career · 1 line in 2026
1%86%13%
2.84
Megan Kostelnik
3W–8L career · 1 line in 2026
3%92%5%
2.77
Jennifer Rainey
5W–6L career · 1 line in 2026
3%93%4%
2.76
Lynnly Sainsbury
9W–26L career · 1 line in 2026
19%81%<1%
2.62

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.