Teams

B7 MAC Bouncers Bates

2021 Richmond Adult 18 & Over Weekend · Richmond Adult 18 & Over Women 3.0

10 players · average NTRP 2.83 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2021-05-22vs B1 Raintree MassengillLost 01
L#1 DoublesMary Church / Jane Harrison vs Erin Lyons / Peggy Bryan6-2, 4-6, 0-1
2021-05-08vs B3 Westwood GilmanWon 10
W#1 DoublesLinda Benson / Mary Church vs Kacie Painter / Christine Holt6-2, 7-6
2021-05-01vs B8 MRTC Battery Park Hawley/GrayWon 10
W#2 DoublesMary Church / Anne Walker vs Vera Spencer-Gray / Joy Nyman6-7, 7-5, 1-0
2021-04-24vs B6 Avalon GhitaWon 10
W#1 DoublesMary Church / Anne Wolff vs Faith Kallman / Jeanne Oostdyk6-0, 1-6, 1-0
2021-04-17vs B4 Woodlake LarocheWon 10
W#1 DoublesLinda Benson / Mary Church vs Lisa Elliott / Virginia Patterson6-3, 7-6
2021-04-10vs B1 Raintree MassengillWon 10
W#2 DoublesMary Church / Ruth Bates vs Molly Smith / Amy Boschen7-5, 0-6, 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 Adult 18 & Over Women 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 2.65 estimated across 10 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.

3.32
Mary Church
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
2.85
Anne Wolff
published 3
2.78
Linda Benson
published
2.77
Sue Mathe
published
2.68
Tina Carter
published
2.67
Anne Walker
published 3
2.63
Ruth Bates
published
2.38
Jane Harrison
published
2.24
Nancy Broaddus
published
2.13
Diana Plasberg
published 2.5
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.

Ruth Bates + Jane Harrison033 matchesnot enough data
Anne Walker + Anne Wolff123 matchesnot enough data
Jane Harrison + Nancy Broaddus033 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.

Mary Church
176W–130L career · 6 lines in 2021
1%91%8%
3.32
3
Anne Wolff
23W–33L career · no lines in 2021
<1%88%12%
2.85
Linda Benson
7W–13L career · no lines in 2021
95%5%<1%
2.78
Sue Mathe
2W–5L career · no lines in 2021
2%94%4%
2.77
Tina Carter
15W–17L career · no lines in 2021
8%91%1%
2.68
3
Anne Walker
7W–9L career · no lines in 2021
9%90%1%
2.67
Ruth Bates
7W–21L career · no lines in 2021
15%84%<1%
2.63
Jane Harrison
0W–6L career · no lines in 2021
82%18%<1%
2.38
Nancy Broaddus
6W–23L career · no lines in 2021
98%2%<1%
2.24
2.5
Diana Plasberg
1W–9L career · no lines in 2021
0%>99%<1%
2.13

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.