Teams

Ridgetop Pugh 2.5

2025 Richmond Doubles Weeknight Women · Richmond Doubles Weeknight 2.5 Women

8 players · average NTRP 2.50 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2025-06-04vs WW Lloyd - Drop Shot DivasWon 30
W#1 DoublesElizabeth Manning / Kerrissa MacPherson vs Lindsay Wiggins / Kendall Maximini2-6, 7-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesCindy Sharp / Amanda Carr vs Catherine Soucie / Amy Kelley3-6, 6-4, 1-0
W#3 DoublesKatherine OHara / Sarah Carswell vs Ashley Allen / Kathryn Regan7-6, 6-3
2025-05-07vs HCC Volley Vixens - Sampson 2.5Lost 03
L#1 DoublesElizabeth Manning / Kerrissa MacPherson vs Denise Saunders / Kathryn Horsley2-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesGrayson Honeycutt / Katherine OHara vs Kimberly Rudolph / Savon Sampson4-6, 4-6
L#3 DoublesNicole Pugh / Amanda Carr vs Erin Lovern / Meghan Hale2-6, 1-6
2025-04-30vs WW Lloyd - Drop Shot DivasWon 21
L#1 DoublesElizabeth Manning / Kerrissa MacPherson vs Melissa Lloyd / Kendall Maximini7-6, 4-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesAmanda Carr / Cindy Sharp vs Susan Bond / Ashley Allen6-1, 6-2
W#3 DoublesNicole Pugh / Sarah Carswell vs Rachael Flynn / Julie Sprinkle6-1, 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 Doubles Weeknight 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 2.25 estimated across 7 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.

2.60
Elizabeth Manning
usually #1 Doubles 80%, also #3 Doubles 20% · published
2.33
Cindy Sharp
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 2.5
2.25
Amanda Carr
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 2.5
2.23
Sarah Carswell
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.14
Nicole Pugh
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.13
Kerrissa MacPherson
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.08
Katherine OHara
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
Grayson Honeycutt
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · 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.

Amanda Carr + Cindy Sharp2347% games+10.4% vs expected
Kerrissa MacPherson + Elizabeth Manning1436% games−7.4% vs expected
Nicole Pugh + Amanda Carr044 matchesnot enough data
Nicole Pugh + Cindy Sharp134 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.

Elizabeth Manning
2W–9L career · 5 lines in 2025
>99%<1%<1%
2.60
2.5
Cindy Sharp
7W–9L career · 4 lines in 2025
0%89%11%
2.33
2.5
Amanda Carr
4W–15L career · 6 lines in 2025
0%96%4%
2.25
Sarah Carswell
5W–4L career · 2 lines in 2025
0%97%3%
2.23
Nicole Pugh
3W–15L career · 2 lines in 2025
0%>99%<1%
2.14
Kerrissa MacPherson
5W–11L career · 3 lines in 2025
0%>99%<1%
2.13
Katherine OHara
5W–10L career · 2 lines in 2025
0%>99%<1%
2.08
Grayson Honeycutt
5W–4L 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.