Teams

BC-AltaVista/LauraDelBeccaro4.5

2026 SoCal Doubles - Beach Cities · BC Women - 4.5

19 players · average NTRP 4.45 / 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 →
Flight standings4 teams · BC Women - 4.5
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1BC-BillieJeanKing/ChikaTaylor4.5000000
2BC-WestEnd/ReginaEsperanza4.5000000
3BC-AltaVista/LauraDelBeccaro4.5000000
4BC-MCC/BreKelleher4.5000000

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 4.16 estimated across 19 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.

4.49
Erica Smalley
published 4.5
4.47
Danay Holman
published 4.5
4.31
Luanne Quiggle
published
4.30
Tania Alvarez Rossy
published
4.29
Laura del Beccaro
published 4.5
4.25
Lauren Estabrook
published
4.25
Elaine Chan
published
4.21
Michele Quan
published 4.5
4.21
Tegwyn John
published
4.15
Gloria Geller
published 4.5
4.12
Michelle Dean
published
4.12
Emily Marmol
published
4.07
Roselle Paskus
published 4.5
4.06
Ruedeemard Odanaka
published 4.5
4.04
Anne Bayne
published 4.5
3.99
Carrie Kisker
published 4.5
3.96
Kelly Finnerty
published
3.86
Abbigail Fietzer
published 4
3.86
Rachael Stone
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.

Laura del Beccaro + Michele Quan5252% games+4.0% vs expected
Abbigail Fietzer + Michele Quan71347% gamesnot enough data
Roselle Paskus + Michele Quan1549% gamesnot enough data
Carrie Kisker + Tania Alvarez Rossy314 matchesnot enough data
Abbigail Fietzer + Roselle Paskus213 matchesnot enough data
Michelle Dean + Roselle Paskus123 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.

4.5
Erica Smalley
109W–64L career · no lines in 2026
<1%54%46%
4.49
4.5
Danay Holman
6W–3L career · no lines in 2026
<1%59%41%
4.47
Luanne Quiggle
3W–1L career · no lines in 2026
1%90%9%
4.31
Tania Alvarez Rossy
9W–4L career · no lines in 2026
2%91%7%
4.30
4.5
Laura del Beccaro
68W–44L career · no lines in 2026
2%91%7%
4.29
Lauren Estabrook
4W–7L career · no lines in 2026
4%93%4%
4.25
Elaine Chan
4W–6L career · no lines in 2026
4%93%3%
4.25
4.5
Michele Quan
75W–102L career · no lines in 2026
6%92%2%
4.21
Tegwyn John
9W–5L career · no lines in 2026
6%92%2%
4.21
4.5
Gloria Geller
139W–102L career · no lines in 2026
14%85%1%
4.15
Michelle Dean
81W–99L career · no lines in 2026
20%80%<1%
4.12
Emily Marmol
3W–3L career · no lines in 2026
20%80%<1%
4.12
4.5
Roselle Paskus
101W–105L career · no lines in 2026
32%68%<1%
4.07
4.5
Ruedeemard Odanaka
98W–95L career · no lines in 2026
33%67%<1%
4.06
4.5
Anne Bayne
1W–6L career · no lines in 2026
40%60%<1%
4.04
4.5
Carrie Kisker
6W–7L career · no lines in 2026
52%48%<1%
3.99
Kelly Finnerty
0W–3L career · no lines in 2026
60%40%<1%
3.96
4
Abbigail Fietzer
84W–115L career · no lines in 2026
<1%83%16%
3.86
Rachael Stone
2W–3L career · no lines in 2026
<1%1%99%
3.86

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.