Teams

SCC Ace Ace Baby Andrews (AM)

2023 Richmond Tri-Level 18 & Over Weekday · Richmond Tri-Level 4.0, 3.5, 3.0 Weekday

14 players · average NTRP 3.50 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2023-11-03vs MTC Jolinski / PattersonLost 01
L#1 DoublesKasey Hammond / Therese Jones vs Susan Nothnagle / Patricia Thagard1-6, 2-6
2023-10-27vs Westwood BerryLost 01
L#1 DoublesCaroline Andrews / Emily Hartman vs Katie Gerecke / Sarah Oatts4-6, 4-6
2023-09-29vs ACAC TandettLost 01
L#1 DoublesCaroline Andrews / Kasey Hammond vs Kelly Naughton / Dana Wilson1-6, 4-6
2023-09-15vs WOCC Smith / MoehlingLost 01
L#1 DoublesTherese Jones / Lee Moore vs Jennifer Smith / Laura Granger0-6, 1-6
2023-09-08vs Woodlake CookseySplit 11
L#1 DoublesEmily Hartman / Julie Kearfott vs Kelley Glen / Marcy Kozlowski2-6, 0-6
W#2 DoublesCaroline Andrews / Alicia Grogan vs Laurie Cooksey / Susan Zielinski6-4, 6-3
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 4.0, 3.5, 3.0 Weekday 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 3.26 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.

3.81
Kasey Hammond
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.72
Emily Hartman
published 4
3.59
Lee Moore
published
3.40
Mandy Tornabene
published
3.33
Julie Kearfott
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.30
Kristin Kim
published
3.29
Therese Jones
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.09
3.09
Caroline Andrews
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
2.91
Laura Haskin
published
2.83
Sally Hurt
published
Debby Gies
published 3
2.72
Cathy Keith
published 3
Vinola Barnes
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.

Therese Jones + Kasey Hammond4453% gamesnot enough data
Caroline Andrews + Julie Kearfott4452% gamesnot 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.

4
Kasey Hammond
71W–58L career · 2 lines in 2023
1%92%7%
3.81
4
Emily Hartman
9W–9L career · no lines in 2023
5%94%2%
3.72
Lee Moore
18W–16L career · no lines in 2023
24%76%<1%
3.59
Mandy Tornabene
15W–11L career · no lines in 2023
<1%77%23%
3.40
3.5
Julie Kearfott
146W–104L career · 1 line in 2023
1%90%10%
3.33
Kristin Kim
20W–13L career · no lines in 2023
1%93%6%
3.30
Therese Jones
88W–122L career · 2 lines in 2023
1%93%5%
3.29
Melissa Brunner-Brown
11W–22L career · no lines in 2023
24%76%<1%
3.09
3.5
Caroline Andrews
69W–67L career · 3 lines in 2023
25%75%<1%
3.09
Laura Haskin
6W–15L career · no lines in 2023
76%24%<1%
2.91
Sally Hurt
13W–22L career · no lines in 2023
90%10%<1%
2.83
3
Debby Gies
3W–3L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
3
Cathy Keith
8W–24L career · no lines in 2023
5%94%1%
2.72
Vinola Barnes
0W–1L 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.