Teams

SGV Dare Doubles-Flores-WN/SU

2025 SoCal FALL Team Singles · SGV - Women 3.0

9 players · average NTRP 3.00 / 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 →
Schedule6 played
W#1 SinglesANALILY PARK vs Tina Lu7-5, 6-2
W#2 SinglesWanyun Zhu vs Katherine Tygart7-5, 6-2
2025-11-09vs SGV Deuces Wild-Shen-Scholl/SA11Lost 01
L#1 SinglesChristine Pedroza vs Malaya Ho6-7, 3-6
2025-10-25vs SGV Spin Doctors-Lee-Flint CYN-SA4Lost 12
W#1 SinglesANALILY PARK vs Pauline Mauro7-5, 6-2
L#2 SinglesThaianne Dashti vs Tina Lu0-6, 3-6
L#3 SinglesYeiwon Park vs Rosie Johnston6-2, 2-6, 0-1
2025-10-18vs SGV Deuces Wild-Shen-Scholl/SA11Lost 12
L#1 SinglesTamara Sobel vs Malaya Ho3-6, 1-6
L#2 SinglesDeborah Kim vs Kaihong Su3-6, 3-6
W#3 SinglesThaianne Dashti vs Karen Clancy6-2, 6-1
W#2 SinglesChristine Pedroza vs Ganga Chandramohan6-1, 6-2
2025-09-27vs SGV Deuces Wild-Shen-Scholl/SA11Won 20
W#1 SinglesDeborah Kim vs Kaihong Su6-0, 6-1
W#2 SinglesThaianne Dashti vs Jessie Do0-6, 6-4, 1-0
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 SGV - Women 3.0 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 2.69 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.

2.88
Christine Pedroza
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #1 Singles 50% · published 3
2.87
Deborah Kim
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 50% · published 3
2.87
Wanyun Zhu
usually #2 Singles 100% · published
ANALILY PARK
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 3
2.72
Tamara Sobel
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
2.51
Teresa Magsaysay
published
2.26
Lea Zhang
published
Thaianne Dashti
usually #2 Singles 67%, also #3 Singles 33% · published
Yeiwon Park
usually #3 Singles 100% · published
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.

3
Christine Pedroza
39W–40L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%80%20%
2.88
3
Deborah Kim
23W–17L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%82%18%
2.87
Wanyun Zhu
11W–5L career · 1 line in 2025
0%<1%>99%
2.87
3
ANALILY PARK
2W–4L career · 3 lines in 2025
not enough data
Tamara Sobel
3W–2L career · 1 line in 2025
6%92%2%
2.72
Teresa Magsaysay
6W–7L career · no lines in 2025
48%52%<1%
2.51
Lea Zhang
3W–12L career · no lines in 2025
0%96%4%
2.26
Thaianne Dashti
2W–1L career · 3 lines in 2025
not enough data
Yeiwon Park
0W–3L career · 1 line 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.