LAGUNA CREEK 65AW7.0A
2026 ADULT 65&Over · Women 7.0
10 players · average NTRP 3.67 / NO. CALIFORNIA
No matches recorded for this roster in this league — it may be a placeholder registration, or the season may not have started.
Schedule10 played
i
Flight standings23 teams · Women 7.0
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1WEST COUNTY TA/RAGLE RANCH 65AW7.0A | 9 | 1 | 11 | 213 |
| 2MERVYN MORRIS PK 65AW7.0A | 9 | 1 | 20 | 224 |
| 3GOLD RIVER RC 65AW7.0B | 8 | 2 | 16 | 209 |
| 4EDGEWATER PK 65AW7.0A | 8 | 2 | 23 | 207 |
| 5PLEASANTON 65AW7.0A | 7 | 3 | 30 | 262 |
| 6MARIN TC 65AW7.0A | 7 | 3 | 34 | 284 |
| 7LOS GATOS SR 65AW7.0A | 6 | 4 | 31 | 272 |
| 8GOLD RIVER RC 65AW7.0A | 6 | 4 | 31 | 280 |
| 9TENNIS COALITION SF/GOLDMAN TC 65AW7.0A | 6 | 4 | 34 | 275 |
| 10SOUTH RENO TENNIS 65AW7.0A | 6 | 4 | 34 | 274 |
| 11IMPERIAL TC 65AW7.0A | 5 | 5 | 33 | 249 |
| 12LAGUNA CREEK 65AW7.0A | 5 | 5 | 34 | 260 |
| 13SILVERADO CC 65AW7.0A | 5 | 5 | 39 | 308 |
| 14VILLAGES GCC 65AW7.0A | 5 | 5 | 41 | 287 |
| 15BAY CLUB COURTSIDE 65AW7.0A | 4 | 6 | 34 | 265 |
| 16RENO TENNIS CENTER 65AW7.0A | 4 | 6 | 35 | 255 |
| 17BERKELEY TC 65AW7.0A | 4 | 6 | 41 | 299 |
| 18CONCORD COMM PK 65AW7.0A | 3 | 7 | 40 | 278 |
| 19MT TAM RC 65AW7.0A | 2 | 8 | 42 | 303 |
| 20CUPERTINO TC/CUPERTINO SC 65AW7.0A | 2 | 8 | 45 | 309 |
| 21TRILOGY 65AW7.0A | 2 | 8 | 47 | 311 |
| 22PETALUMA TA/LEGHORNS PK 65AW7.0A | 1 | 9 | 49 | 327 |
| 23JOHNSON RANCH 65AW7.0A | 1 | 9 | 50 | 336 |
Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.
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 3.33 estimated across 8 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.
Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.
| Michelle Christensen + Emily Ohair | 4–2 | 56% games | not enough data |
| Mitzi Styer + Cecelia Henry | 2–2 | 4 matches | not enough data |
| Carla Halligan + Ellen Fransz | 3–0 | 3 matches | not enough data |
| Michelle Christensen + Leesa Linn | 1–2 | 3 matches | not enough data |
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.
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.