Teams

SRA Roper Crews

2025 Richmond Tri-Level Weekday · Richmond Tri-Level Weekday 4.0, 3.5, 3.0

12 players · average NTRP 3.38 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2025-09-05vs TDC Spillare/Wyman Tri LevelLost 01
L#1 DoublesKandyce Baker / Martinique Kandl vs Nicole Wyman / Lauren Duke0-6, 4-6
2025-08-29vs Woodlake CookseyLost 01
L#1 DoublesMartinique Kandl / Noelle Crews vs Dana Fath / Kelley Glen6-4, 3-6, 1-0
L#1 DoublesMartinique Kandl / Ruslana Remennikova vs Abbey Orski / Amery Whitby2-6, 6-3, 0-1
2025-08-01vs MTC PattersonWon 10
W#2 DoublesVirginia Loftin / Martinique Kandl vs Anne Gilfillan / Jacqueline Gonzales6-1, 6-4
2025-07-29vs HCC Mangin/KerseyWon 10
W#2 DoublesMartinique Kandl / Noelle Crews vs Mary Beth Scott / Elizabeth Wiertel0-6, 6-1, 1-0
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 Weekday 4.0, 3.5, 3.0 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 3.04 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.

Hope Jordan
published 4
3.58
Veronica Cummings
published
3.50
Noelle Crews
published
3.46
Martinique Kandl
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published 3.5
3.32
Virginia Loftin
published
3.04
CONSTANCE MATTOX
published 3
2.91
Kay Lynch
published
2.88
Kristen Roper
published
2.80
Autumn Harbour
published 3
2.77
Kim Joffe
published
2.63
Jill Wiggins
published
2.49
Sarah Powers
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.

CONSTANCE MATTOX + Noelle Crews3455% games+2.8% vs expected
Virginia Loftin + Autumn Harbour3355% gamesnot enough data
Jill Wiggins + Autumn Harbour213 matchesnot enough data
Virginia Loftin + Kim Joffe303 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.

4
Hope Jordan
0W–2L career · type S · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Veronica Cummings
9W–7L career · no lines in 2025
27%73%<1%
3.58
Noelle Crews
39W–38L career · no lines in 2025
<1%49%51%
3.50
3.5
Martinique Kandl
167W–65L career · 5 lines in 2025
<1%63%37%
3.46
Virginia Loftin
21W–7L career · no lines in 2025
1%91%8%
3.32
3
CONSTANCE MATTOX
29W–31L career · no lines in 2025
<1%38%62%
3.04
Kay Lynch
2W–1L career · no lines in 2025
<1%75%24%
2.91
Kristen Roper
23W–19L career · no lines in 2025
<1%83%17%
2.88
3
Autumn Harbour
12W–9L career · no lines in 2025
1%92%7%
2.80
Kim Joffe
11W–6L career · no lines in 2025
2%94%4%
2.77
Jill Wiggins
4W–6L career · no lines in 2025
16%84%<1%
2.63
Sarah Powers
20W–24L career · no lines in 2025
0%52%48%
2.49

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.