Teams

17 ACAC Holahan

2025 Richmond Singles · Richmond Singles 3.5 Women

8 players · average NTRP 3.50 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2025-11-06vs 1 CORA Westnuts - Shudtz/ZachLost 12
W#1 SinglesLauren Bale vs Jamie McLeod3-6, 6-2, 1-0
L#2 SinglesAnne Saunier vs Meghan Dexter7-5, 5-7, 0-1
L#3 SinglesAmy Golden vs Sarah Johnson7-5, 3-6, 0-1
2025-11-04Lost 01
L#2 SinglesSandra Holahan vs Audrey Smith2-6, 1-6
W#1 SinglesAnne Saunier vs Katy Bassler7-5, 6-2
W#2 SinglesKelli Bonner vs Cecilia Bergh6-3, 6-2
L#3 SinglesMichelle Lilly vs Raven Fisher5-7, 6-1, 0-1
2025-10-09vs 13 Burkwood - CookLost 03
L#1 SinglesAmanda Monger vs Jordan McFee2-6, 1-6
L#2 SinglesDawn MacHonis vs Tara Sobel1-6, 1-6
L#3 SinglesKelli Bonner vs Yen Huynh6-1, 3-6, 0-1
2025-09-25vs 15 Herm- AloufLost 03
L#1 SinglesLauren Bale vs Joanna Bergeron3-6, 3-4
L#2 SinglesAnne Saunier vs Kelsey Royster3-6, 2-6
L#3 SinglesMichelle Lilly vs Charlotte Caporale1-6, 4-6
2025-09-23vs 7 SCC Gilbert SinglesWon 21
W#1 SinglesAnne Saunier vs Andrea Hill6-4, 6-3
L#2 SinglesAmy Golden vs Brooke Gilbert2-6, 6-7
W#3 SinglesMichelle Lilly vs Regina Perkinson6-3, 3-6, 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 Singles 3.5 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 3.18 estimated across 8 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.

3.45
Lauren Bale
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
3.37
Kelli Bonner
usually #2 Singles 40%, also #1 Singles 40% · published
3.23
Anne Saunier
usually #1 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 50% · published 3.5
3.10
Sandra Holahan
usually #2 Singles 100% · published 3.5
3.10
Dawn MacHonis
usually #2 Singles 100% · published 3.5
3.08
Amanda Monger
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 3.5
3.06
Amy Golden
usually #3 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 50% · published 3.5
3.05
Michelle Lilly
usually #3 Singles 50%, also #2 Singles 33% · 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.

Michelle Lilly + Kelli Bonner314 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.

Lauren Bale
6W–4L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%64%36%
3.45
Kelli Bonner
38W–9L career · 5 lines in 2025
<1%82%18%
3.37
3.5
Anne Saunier
20W–28L career · 4 lines in 2025
5%92%3%
3.23
3.5
Sandra Holahan
59W–94L career · 1 line in 2025
24%76%<1%
3.10
3.5
Dawn MacHonis
5W–9L career · 1 line in 2025
25%75%<1%
3.10
3.5
Amanda Monger
4W–10L career · 1 line in 2025
29%71%<1%
3.08
3.5
Amy Golden
1W–12L career · 2 lines in 2025
33%67%<1%
3.06
Michelle Lilly
50W–28L career · 6 lines in 2025
<1%36%64%
3.05

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.