Teams

Westwood Hause

2022 Richmond Adult 18 & Over Weekday Women · Richmond Adult 18 & Over 4.0 Women

11 players · average NTRP 3.93 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2022-06-10vs TDC WymanWon 10
W#3 DoublesMichelle Baker / Liza Hause vs Linda Battle / Sarah Capehart1-6, 6-0, 1-0
2022-06-03vs Woodlake RitterWon 10
W#3 DoublesLiza Hause / Rene Philhower vs Jennifer Thaxton / Leigh Ann Barker6-4, 6-4
2022-05-31vs ACAC CarmanWon 10
W#2 DoublesMichelle Baker / Rene Philhower vs Heather Colberg / Elizabeth Newman7-6, 6-3
2022-05-27vs Raintree FallinSplit 11
L#2 DoublesMichelle Baker / Kimberly Varney vs Xianghong Li / Anne Maliff5-7, 4-6
W#3 DoublesLiza Hause / Laura Strickler vs N/A6-0, 6-0
2022-05-20vs HCC CaldwellSplit 11
W#2 DoublesMichelle Baker / Rene Philhower vs Kristy Bauer / Mary Williams6-3, 6-4
L#3 DoublesLiza Hause / Sarah Whitmore vs Pam Vossenberg / Debbie Messmer2-6, 4-6
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 4.0 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 3.68 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.

3.96
Abigail Dryden
published 4
3.88
Brigitte Fanelli
published 4
3.75
Kimberly Varney
published
3.75
Barbara Hassett
published 4
3.69
Michelle Baker
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 4
3.67
Lauren Jones
published
3.67
Laura Strickler
published
3.64
Dana Johnson
published 4
3.51
Liza Hause
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.29
Amy Mulholland
published 3.5
Rene Philhower
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.

Liza Hause + Michelle Baker12257% games+4.5% vs expected
Laura Strickler + Dana Johnson033 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
Abigail Dryden
11W–4L career · no lines in 2022
<1%64%36%
3.96
4
Brigitte Fanelli
5W–2L career · no lines in 2022
<1%83%17%
3.88
Kimberly Varney
6W–8L career · no lines in 2022
3%95%3%
3.75
4
Barbara Hassett
5W–6L career · no lines in 2022
3%95%2%
3.75
4
Michelle Baker
150W–84L career · 4 lines in 2022
7%92%1%
3.69
Lauren Jones
19W–8L career · no lines in 2022
10%90%1%
3.67
Laura Strickler
6W–10L career · no lines in 2022
10%90%1%
3.67
4
Dana Johnson
0W–3L career · no lines in 2022
15%85%<1%
3.64
4
Liza Hause
210W–142L career · 4 lines in 2022
46%54%<1%
3.51
3.5
Amy Mulholland
8W–3L career · no lines in 2022
1%93%6%
3.29
Rene Philhower
3W–2L career · no lines in 2022
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.