Teams

B8 Kanawha Smash Girls Green/Turner

2021 Richmond Adult 18 & Over Weekend · Richmond Adult 18 & Over Women 3.5

12 players · average NTRP 3.75 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule7 played
2021-06-05vs B1 WOCC HaasLost 01
L#1 SinglesKatherine Fleck vs Jessica Morton1-6, 0-6
W#1 SinglesSara Winterhoff vs Jennifer Short6-1, 7-5
2021-05-08vs B2 ACAC Naylor/HoeferLost 02
L#1 SinglesKatherine Fleck vs Natalie Lewis1-6, 5-7
L#2 SinglesSara Winterhoff vs Elena Carter1-6, 1-6
2021-04-24vs B5 Bon Air BalsamoLost 02
L#1 SinglesSara Winterhoff vs Jeanne Albright4-6, 5-7
L#2 SinglesKatherine Fleck vs Lynette Villadelgado3-6, 6-4, 0-1
2021-04-17vs B3 Westwood WestLost 01
L#2 DoublesMolly Gorman / Katherine Fleck vs Jessica van Tuyle / Heather Harker1-6, 4-6
2021-04-10vs B7 Avalon Albrecht Street GangLost 01
L#1 SinglesKatherine Fleck vs Lesley Terminella1-6, 3-6
2021-04-06vs B3 Westwood WestWon 10
W#3 DoublesSara Winterhoff / Lauren Turner vs Sarah Demm / Patricia Bishop7-5, 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 Adult 18 & Over Women 3.5 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 3.28 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.

4.12
Katherine Shiveley
published
3.88
Emily Gravitt
published 4
3.48
Lauren Turner
published
3.44
Jordan Harper
published
3.33
Katherine Fleck
usually #1 Singles 60%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published
3.24
Sara Winterhoff
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published
3.19
Wendy Daniel
published
3.04
Laurie Barnes
published
3.00
Christine Martine
published 3.5
2.94
Kerri Green
published
2.49
Nancy Bryner
published
Robin Reifsnider
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.

Katherine Fleck + Sara Winterhoff141645% games−2.9% vs expected
Laurie Barnes + Kerri Green033 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.

Katherine Shiveley
6W–5L career · no lines in 2021
19%81%<1%
4.12
4
Emily Gravitt
3W–6L career · no lines in 2021
<1%83%17%
3.88
Lauren Turner
11W–10L career · no lines in 2021
<1%57%43%
3.48
Jordan Harper
11W–10L career · no lines in 2021
<1%68%32%
3.44
Katherine Fleck
65W–61L career · 5 lines in 2021
1%90%10%
3.33
Sara Winterhoff
99W–86L career · 4 lines in 2021
3%94%2%
3.24
Wendy Daniel
15W–18L career · no lines in 2021
7%92%1%
3.19
Laurie Barnes
1W–5L career · no lines in 2021
37%63%<1%
3.04
3.5
Christine Martine
4W–10L career · type A · no lines in 2021
51%49%<1%
3.00
Kerri Green
1W–5L career · no lines in 2021
68%32%<1%
2.94
Nancy Bryner
6W–8L career · no lines in 2021
53%47%<1%
2.49
Robin Reifsnider
0W–2L career · no lines in 2021
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.