Teams

TDC Long

2023 Richmond Adult 40 & Over Weekday Women · Richmond Adult 40 & Over 3.5 Weekday Women

13 players · average NTRP 3.36 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2023-07-12vs Stonehenge BullWon 10
W#1 DoublesSheri Carlyle / Heidi Collier vs Zoe Emerson / Maureen Sisti6-4, 6-1
2023-07-05vs ACAC Cheatham / HoeferWon 10
W#2 DoublesHeidi Collier / Michele Limoges vs Carol Pfeiffer / Trisha Smith7-5, 6-2
2023-06-29vs TDC SpillareWon 10
W#3 DoublesSusan Long / Heidi Collier vs Laura Wheeler / Stephanie Marcus7-5, 6-2
2023-06-28vs Westwood Combs / PokrywkaWon 10
W#1 DoublesHeidi Collier / Nancy Price vs SanDee Gammon / Donna Bearman7-6, 4-4
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 40 & Over 3.5 Weekday 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 3.13 estimated across 12 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.

3.82
Nancy Price
published
3.56
Melissa MacAleese
published
3.36
Heidi Collier
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.26
Deborah Eldridge
published 3.5
Anna Gibellato
published 3.5
3.17
Cynthia Mistretta
published 3.5
3.14
Sheri Carlyle
published
3.05
Michele Limoges
published
3.02
Annette Vignone
published 3.5
2.89
Kumiko Suzuki
published
2.87
Eliza Causey
published 3
2.77
Leslie Baker
published
2.70
Becky Harper
published 3
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.

Sheri Carlyle + Heidi Collier4162% games+8.1% vs expected
Sheri Carlyle + Michele Limoges123 matchesnot enough data
Deborah Eldridge + Cynthia Mistretta213 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.

Nancy Price
7W–7L career · no lines in 2023
<1%1%99%
3.82
Melissa MacAleese
15W–9L career · no lines in 2023
<1%32%68%
3.56
3.5
Heidi Collier
118W–82L career · 4 lines in 2023
<1%86%13%
3.36
3.5
Deborah Eldridge
16W–19L career · no lines in 2023
2%94%3%
3.26
3.5
Anna Gibellato
2W–2L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
3.5
Cynthia Mistretta
6W–11L career · no lines in 2023
10%89%1%
3.17
Sheri Carlyle
17W–12L career · no lines in 2023
14%85%<1%
3.14
Michele Limoges
4W–9L career · no lines in 2023
34%66%<1%
3.05
3.5
Annette Vignone
2W–6L career · no lines in 2023
43%57%<1%
3.02
Kumiko Suzuki
3W–7L career · no lines in 2023
80%20%<1%
2.89
3
Eliza Causey
22W–13L career · no lines in 2023
<1%84%15%
2.87
Leslie Baker
6W–10L career · no lines in 2023
2%94%4%
2.77
3
Becky Harper
12W–14L career · no lines in 2023
6%93%1%
2.70

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.