Teams

ACAC Strobl / Reale

2023 Richmond Tri-Level 18 & Over Weeknight · Richmond Tri-Level 3.5, 3.0, 2.5 Women

19 players · average NTRP 3.10 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule1 played
2023-09-26vs Huguenot Park MetzWon 10
W#1 DoublesElena Carter / Dawn Toft vs Nancy Metz / Shanan Raines7-5, 6-0
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 Richmond Tri-Level 3.5, 3.0, 2.5 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 2.92 estimated across 15 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.

3.43
Dawn Toft
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.43
Lauren Bale
published
3.40
Jessica Bufford
published
3.30
Denise Weisberg
usually #2 Doubles 63%, also #1 Doubles 38% · published 3.5
3.28
Lori Strobl
published
3.23
Elena Carter
published 3.5
3.11
Carol Pfeiffer
published 3.5
2.85
Avery Horgan
published 3
2.75
Jane Parrish
published
Gabriela Vazquez
published 3
2.69
Theresa Bartholomew
published
2.64
Farrah Stone
published 3
2.62
Diane Reale
published 3
2.55
Rosita Torres
published
2.50
Kimberlee Pepple
published
Elizabeth Bock
published 2.5
1.97
Alla Lerner-Brandon
published 2.5
Kristin Lemon
published
Myrna Abed
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.

Dawn Toft + Denise Weisberg341359% games+4.5% vs expected
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
Dawn Toft
78W–43L career · 1 line in 2023
<1%69%31%
3.43
Lauren Bale
6W–4L career · no lines in 2023
<1%69%31%
3.43
Jessica Bufford
28W–11L career · no lines in 2023
<1%79%21%
3.40
3.5
Denise Weisberg
175W–162L career · 8 lines in 2023
1%93%6%
3.30
Lori Strobl
28W–21L career · no lines in 2023
2%94%4%
3.28
3.5
Elena Carter
19W–15L career · no lines in 2023
4%94%2%
3.23
3.5
Carol Pfeiffer
9W–16L career · no lines in 2023
21%79%<1%
3.11
3
Avery Horgan
10W–22L career · no lines in 2023
<1%88%12%
2.85
Jane Parrish
7W–13L career · no lines in 2023
2%95%3%
2.75
3
Gabriela Vazquez
1W–3L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Theresa Bartholomew
5W–10L career · no lines in 2023
7%92%1%
2.69
3
Farrah Stone
4W–5L career · type A · no lines in 2023
14%85%<1%
2.64
3
Diane Reale
9W–11L career · no lines in 2023
17%82%<1%
2.62
Rosita Torres
5W–16L career · no lines in 2023
34%66%<1%
2.55
Kimberlee Pepple
5W–10L career · no lines in 2023
52%48%<1%
2.50
2.5
Elizabeth Bock
2W–10L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
2.5
Alla Lerner-Brandon
4W–11L career · no lines in 2023
0%>99%<1%
1.97
Kristin Lemon
0W–4L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Myrna Abed
4W–5L career · no lines in 2023
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.