Teams

Woodlake Hannon

2023 Richmond Flexible Format Women · Richmond Flexible Format Women 7.0

7 players · average NTRP 3.50 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule7 played
2023-05-22vs RMC SweeneyLost 01
L#2 Female DoublesStacey Cabral / Karen Hannon vs Kimberly Garrett / Teresa Landes-Shuler6-2, 0-6, 0-1
2023-05-15Won 10
W#3 Female DoublesKaren Hannon / Jayne Deck vs N/A6-0, 6-0
2023-05-08vs Raintree EntersLost 01
L#3 Female DoublesJeanean Phelps / Rosie Ortiz vs Christine Martine / Laura Ransone4-6, 0-6
2023-05-01vs MAC MortonWon 10
W#2 Female DoublesMary Estes / Karen Hannon vs Melody Morton / Mary Church6-3, 7-6
2023-04-24vs Bon Air RhodesWon 10
W#2 Female DoublesStacey Cabral / Jennifer Harris vs Kimberly Rabb / Donna Lawson6-2, 6-1
2023-04-17vs Westwood SeredniLost 02
L#2 Female DoublesCrissy Poindexter / Mary Estes vs Denise Dietz / Allison Woodruff3-6, 1-6
L#3 Female DoublesKaren Hannon / Jeanean Phelps vs Margaret Burke / Christine Holt3-6, 4-6
2023-04-10vs HCC Lines 7.0Lost 02
L#2 Female DoublesCrissy Poindexter / Mary Estes vs Susan Mangin / Kim Magnano1-6, 3-6
L#3 Female DoublesJeanean Phelps / Stacey Cabral vs Kimberly Ross / Jennifer Polk4-6, 0-6
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 Flexible Format Women 7.0 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 3.02 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.

3.39
Stacey Cabral
usually #1 Female Doubles 57%, also #2 Female Doubles 29% · published 3.5
3.27
Mary Estes
usually #2 Female Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.13
Robin Oldt
published
2.91
Crissy Poindexter
published 3.5
2.89
Jeanean Phelps
usually #3 Female Doubles 50%, also #2 Female Doubles 50% · published
2.79
Karen Hannon
usually #3 Female Doubles 50%, also #2 Female Doubles 50% · published
2.74
Rosie Ortiz
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.

Stacey Cabral + Mary Estes7358% gamesnot enough data
Jeanean Phelps + Stacey Cabral2345% gamesnot enough data
Jeanean Phelps + Karen Hannon044 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.

3.5
Stacey Cabral
217W–103L career · 7 lines in 2023
<1%79%21%
3.39
3.5
Mary Estes
122W–112L career · 3 lines in 2023
3%92%5%
3.27
Robin Oldt
13W–7L career · no lines in 2023
19%81%<1%
3.13
3.5
Crissy Poindexter
2W–4L career · no lines in 2023
73%27%<1%
2.91
Jeanean Phelps
145W–152L career · 6 lines in 2023
<1%78%22%
2.89
Karen Hannon
66W–116L career · 4 lines in 2023
2%91%7%
2.79
Rosie Ortiz
3W–1L career · no lines in 2023
5%92%3%
2.74

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.