Teams

CCV Desch/Turner 6.0

2025 Richmond Doubles Weeknight Women · Richmond Doubles Weeknight 6.0 Women

15 players · average NTRP 3.17 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule7 played
2025-05-29vs Stonehenge Danowski 6.0Won 20
W#1 DoublesElizabeth Crowley / Mary Desch vs Sarah Brinkley / Martha Pratt6-2, 6-2
W#2 DoublesLacy Briney / Peanut Kempe vs Lexie Zambito / Andrea Doyle6-2, 6-1
2025-05-22vs Three Chopt PriddyWon 30
W#1 DoublesAnn Kamps Taliaferro / Caroline Turner vs Anne Meng / Micol Hutchison6-0, 6-1
W#2 DoublesJulie Shudtz / Elizabeth Carr vs Pamela Hughes / Georgia Thornburg6-2, 6-2
W#3 DoublesGinny Hofheimer / Lacy Briney vs Carolyn Elgin / Nancy Priddy7-6, 6-4
2025-05-19vs Raintree Cheek Chicks 6.0Split 11
W#1 DoublesCamp August / Berkeley Martin vs Holly Hathaway / Danielle Simms6-3, 6-2
L#2 DoublesLacy Briney / Peanut Kempe vs Peggy Bryan / Geetanjali Kidambi3-6, 6-4, 0-1
2025-04-28vs MAC Merry Makers Bates 6.0Won 30
W#1 DoublesBerkeley Martin / Ann Kamps Taliaferro vs Anne Wolff / Stacy Sherdel6-3, 6-3
W#2 DoublesAnn Gurkin / Lacy Briney vs Linda Benson / Melinda Staples6-4, 7-5
W#3 DoublesMichelle Jessee / Lizzy Marchant vs Kellie Samson / Ruth Bates6-3, 6-4
2025-04-21vs Ridgetop Pugh 6.0Won 20
W#1 DoublesAnn Gurkin / Elizabeth Carr vs Emily Phaup / Cindy Sharp6-2, 6-0
W#2 DoublesElizabeth Crowley / Camp August vs Amanda Carr / Nellie Blair6-4, 6-4
2025-04-15vs Willow Oaks Knierim 6.0Won 21
W#1 DoublesPeanut Kempe / Ann Kamps Taliaferro vs Catherine Matawaran / Anne Scher6-1, 6-0
W#2 DoublesAnn Gurkin / Elizabeth Crowley vs Amy Broderick / Kristin Hamlin5-7, 6-4, 1-0
L#3 DoublesLacy Briney / Ginny Hofheimer vs Mary Scott Swanson / Zinie Sampson3-6, 2-6
2025-04-08vs MAC Gault 6.0Lost 03
L#1 DoublesPeanut Kempe / Elizabeth Carr vs Timea Harisova / Kayci McLeod4-6, 7-6, 0-1
L#2 DoublesLacy Briney / Julie Shudtz vs Noelle Crews / Maria Gault4-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesLizzy Marchant / Michelle Jessee vs Jeannette FRALIN / Susan Rogers1-6, 5-7
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 Doubles Weeknight 6.0 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 3.13 estimated across 11 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.

3.56
Elizabeth Carr
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.26
Mary Desch
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.25
Caroline Turner
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.24
Camp August
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.21
Ann Kamps Taliaferro
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
3.13
Julie Shudtz
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
3.13
Berkeley Martin
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
3.04
Elizabeth Crowley
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.99
Peanut Kempe
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
2.89
Lacy Briney
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
Ann Gurkin
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 3
Cara Patterson
published 3
Ginny Hofheimer
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.73
Lizzy Marchant
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Michelle Jessee
usually #3 Doubles 100% · 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.

Ann Kamps Taliaferro + Peanut Kempe303 matchesnot enough data
Ann Kamps Taliaferro + Berkeley Martin303 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
Elizabeth Carr
43W–8L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%32%68%
3.56
Mary Desch
6W–2L career · 1 line in 2025
2%95%3%
3.26
3.5
Caroline Turner
5W–1L career · 1 line in 2025
2%95%3%
3.25
3.5
Camp August
6W–2L career · 2 lines in 2025
3%95%2%
3.24
3
Ann Kamps Taliaferro
27W–9L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%5%95%
3.21
Julie Shudtz
14W–15L career · 3 lines in 2025
16%84%<1%
3.13
3
Berkeley Martin
12W–2L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%16%84%
3.13
3
Elizabeth Crowley
22W–5L career · 3 lines in 2025
<1%39%61%
3.04
Peanut Kempe
13W–12L career · 4 lines in 2025
<1%54%46%
2.99
Lacy Briney
12W–6L career · 6 lines in 2025
<1%81%19%
2.89
3
Ann Gurkin
3W–0L career · 3 lines in 2025
not enough data
3
Cara Patterson
1W–0L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
3
Ginny Hofheimer
4W–2L career · 2 lines in 2025
not enough data
Lizzy Marchant
4W–4L career · 2 lines in 2025
4%94%2%
2.73
Michelle Jessee
3W–1L career · 2 lines in 2025
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.