Teams

18 Belmont Bouncers Bates

2023 Richmond Adult 18 & Over Weekend · Richmond Adult 18 & Over 3.0 Women

11 players · average NTRP 2.83 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule7 played
2023-06-03vs 15 LPC EarleWon 10
W#1 DoublesMary Church / Anne Wolff vs Carolyn Elgin / Kim Earle6-1, 6-1
2023-05-20vs 7 ACAC LitzLost 01
L#1 DoublesMary Church / Anne Wolff vs Rebecca Cassilly / Irene Quilez6-4, 2-6, 0-1
W#1 DoublesAnne Wolff / Mary Church vs Joy Nyman / Robbin Coleman6-1, 7-5
2023-05-06vs 22 Willow Oaks KramerWon 10
W#1 DoublesMary Church / Amy Williams vs Melissa Mathe / Catherine Matawaran6-4, 1-6, 1-0
2023-04-22vs 23 Hermitage KnullWon 10
W#1 DoublesMary Church / Anne Wolff vs Kirsten Knull / Megan Moore3-6, 6-2, 1-0
2023-04-15vs 9 Salisbury JamLost 01
L#1 DoublesAnne Wolff / Mary Church vs Kelli Doern / Sally Hurt6-2, 4-6, 0-1
2023-04-01vs 13 Burkwood Delaney-DixonWon 10
W#1 DoublesAnne Wolff / Mary Church vs Susan Pennino / Paula Little6-1, 7-5
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 3.0 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 2.71 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.

3.32
Rashelle Hayes
published
3.27
Mary Church
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.87
Anne Wolff
published 3
2.78
Linda Benson
published
2.77
Sue Mathe
published
2.69
Tina Carter
published
2.68
Anne Walker
published 3
2.65
Ruth Bates
published
2.40
Jane Harrison
published
2.26
Nancy Broaddus
published
2.12
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.

Rashelle Hayes
13W–9L career · no lines in 2023
1%89%10%
3.32
Mary Church
175W–128L career · 7 lines in 2023
3%92%5%
3.27
3
Anne Wolff
23W–30L career · no lines in 2023
<1%82%17%
2.87
Linda Benson
7W–13L career · no lines in 2023
94%6%<1%
2.78
Sue Mathe
2W–5L career · no lines in 2023
3%92%5%
2.77
Tina Carter
15W–17L career · no lines in 2023
8%90%1%
2.69
3
Anne Walker
7W–9L career · no lines in 2023
10%89%1%
2.68
Ruth Bates
7W–21L career · no lines in 2023
15%85%1%
2.65
Jane Harrison
0W–6L career · no lines in 2023
76%24%<1%
2.40
Nancy Broaddus
6W–22L career · no lines in 2023
95%5%<1%
2.26
2.5
Diana Plasberg
1W–9L career · no lines in 2023
0%>99%<1%
2.12

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.