Teams

ACAC- Callaghan

2024 Richmond Adult 18 & Over Weekday Women · Richmond Adult 18 & Over 3.5 Women

13 players · average NTRP 3.50 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2024-06-14vs ACAC CAMDENWon 10
W#1 DoublesNikki Callaghan / Martinique Kandl vs Linda Larue / Judy Napier6-1, 6-3
2024-06-13vs Raintree- MartinSplit 11
L#1 DoublesBarbara Kasten / Jodi Tandett vs Mandy Setliff / Lisa Harmon6-4, 3-6, 1-0
W#1 SinglesMartinique Kandl vs Shannon Webb6-4, 4-6, 1-0
2024-05-31vs Westwood Gilman & AnthonyLost 01
L#1 DoublesBarbara Kasten / Martinique Kandl vs Meredith Schwartz / Britta Petersson2-6, 7-6, 0-1
2024-05-21vs Woodlake CookseyLost 01
L#2 DoublesJennifer Funk / Martinique Kandl vs Lim Han / Carol Beth Cook6-3, 2-6, 0-1
2024-05-17vs Salisbury- AndrewsWon 10
W#1 DoublesNikki Callaghan / Martinique Kandl vs Kristin Kim / Heather Benedetti6-3, 6-4
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 18 & Over 3.5 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 3.21 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.

3.46
Martinique Kandl
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published 3.5
3.43
Lauren Bale
published
3.41
Robin Griffith
published
3.36
Jodi Tandett
published
3.25
Barbara Kasten
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.23
Nikki Callaghan
published
3.16
Susan Lockhart
published
3.16
Deanne Ralston
published 3.5
3.15
Irene Quilez
published 3.5
3.11
Jill Bunn
published
3.06
Jennifer Funk
published
2.69
Theresa Bartholomew
published
Judy Duke
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.

Martinique Kandl + Barbara Kasten6160% gamesnot enough data
Jodi Tandett + Barbara Kasten123 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
Martinique Kandl
167W–65L career · 5 lines in 2024
<1%63%37%
3.46
Lauren Bale
6W–4L career · no lines in 2024
<1%69%31%
3.43
Robin Griffith
31W–13L career · no lines in 2024
<1%75%25%
3.41
Jodi Tandett
18W–12L career · no lines in 2024
<1%85%14%
3.36
3.5
Barbara Kasten
158W–66L career · 2 lines in 2024
3%95%3%
3.25
Nikki Callaghan
6W–4L career · no lines in 2024
4%94%2%
3.23
Susan Lockhart
11W–11L career · no lines in 2024
11%89%<1%
3.16
3.5
Deanne Ralston
7W–8L career · no lines in 2024
11%88%<1%
3.16
3.5
Irene Quilez
4W–12L career · no lines in 2024
12%88%<1%
3.15
Jill Bunn
3W–5L career · no lines in 2024
19%81%<1%
3.11
Jennifer Funk
7W–11L career · no lines in 2024
33%67%<1%
3.06
Theresa Bartholomew
5W–10L career · no lines in 2024
7%92%1%
2.69
Judy Duke
2W–3L career · no lines in 2024
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.