Teams

RCC Ames

2022 Richmond Adult 65 & Over Weekday Women · Richmond Adult 65 & Over 8.0 Women

10 players · average NTRP 3.50 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule7 played
2022-06-06vs CCV LongWon 10
W#1 DoublesPam Walsh / Catherine Fallin vs Peggy Croke / Pam Sweeney3-6, 6-2, 1-0
2022-05-23vs MTC ReynoldsLost 01
L#1 DoublesPam Walsh / Catherine Fallin vs Maureen McGrath / Jeannie Langnau6-7, 2-6
2022-05-16vs Belmont ColginLost 01
L#1 DoublesCatherine Fallin / Lorraine McGehee vs Nancy Hayes / Jane Riddle6-3, 2-6, 1-0
2022-05-09Won 10
W#1 DoublesCatherine Fallin / Pam Walsh vs Christine Douglas / Mary Miller6-7, 7-6, 1-0
2022-05-02vs MTC ReynoldsLost 01
L#2 DoublesCatherine Fallin / Susan Valiquett vs Anne Gilfillan / Hanna Mogilnicka2-6, 3-6
2022-04-25vs Belmont ColginWon 10
W#2 DoublesCatherine Fallin / Kathy Ames vs Nancy Hayes / Ella Johnson6-2, 3-6, 1-0
2022-04-11vs MTC ReynoldsLost 01
L#1 DoublesCatherine Fallin / Christine Finnegan vs Thayer Baird / Hanna Mogilnicka1-6, 4-6
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 Richmond Adult 65 & Over 8.0 Women 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 3.33 estimated across 7 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.

3.60
Pam Walsh
published
3.42
Susan Valiquett
published
3.37
Annie H Johnson
published 3.5
3.30
Lorraine McGehee
published
3.26
Kathy Ames
published
3.25
Catherine Fallin
usually #1 Doubles 71%, also #2 Doubles 29% · published 3.5
3.14
Sheri Carlyle
published
Jennifer Polk
published
Linda Battle
published
Marykay Stainback
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.

Catherine Fallin + Lorraine McGehee224 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.

Pam Walsh
2W–3L career · no lines in 2022
21%78%<1%
3.60
Susan Valiquett
5W–4L career · no lines in 2022
73%27%<1%
3.42
3.5
Annie H Johnson
3W–7L career · no lines in 2022
<1%84%16%
3.37
Lorraine McGehee
15W–15L career · no lines in 2022
1%93%6%
3.30
Kathy Ames
7W–1L career · no lines in 2022
2%94%3%
3.26
3.5
Catherine Fallin
125W–165L career · 7 lines in 2022
3%95%3%
3.25
Sheri Carlyle
17W–12L career · no lines in 2022
14%85%<1%
3.14
Jennifer Polk
1W–2L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Linda Battle
1W–2L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Marykay Stainback
1W–4L career · no lines in 2022
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.