Teams

ACAC Bartholomew

2022 Richmond Tri-Level 18 & Over Weeknight · Richmond Tri-Level 3.5, 3.0, 2.5 Women

20 players · average NTRP 3.17 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2022-10-28vs ACAC Kelsey / DavisLost 01
L#1 DoublesDawn MacHonis / Dawn Toft vs Christina Aeinan Kang / Yasmin Lutterbie7-6, 3-6, 0-1
2022-10-19vs Westwood Wilcox Whackers - WWWWon 10
W#1 DoublesDawn Toft / Rosita Torres vs Julie Farney / Cherie Warfield2-6, 6-4, 1-0
2022-09-28vs Avalon AlbrechtWon 10
W#1 DoublesElena Carter / Dawn Toft vs Kim Schultz / Marge Street6-0, 6-4
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 3.5, 3.0, 2.5 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 2.89 estimated across 17 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.

3.43
Dawn Toft
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.43
Lauren Bale
published
3.28
Lori Strobl
published
3.23
Elena Carter
published 3.5
3.23
Rebecca Cassilly
published
3.11
Carol Pfeiffer
published 3.5
3.10
Dawn MacHonis
published 3.5
2.99
Patti Bryan
published
2.85
Avery Horgan
published 3
2.76
LOUISA HARRISON
published
2.75
Jane Parrish
published
Gabriela Vazquez
published 3
2.69
Theresa Bartholomew
published
2.64
Farrah Stone
published 3
2.62
Diane Reale
published 3
2.55
Rosita Torres
published
2.50
Kimberlee Pepple
published
1.97
Alla Lerner-Brandon
published 2.5
Kristin Lemon
published
Myrna Abed
published
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.

3.5
Dawn Toft
78W–43L career · 3 lines in 2022
<1%69%31%
3.43
Lauren Bale
6W–4L career · no lines in 2022
<1%69%31%
3.43
Lori Strobl
28W–21L career · no lines in 2022
2%94%4%
3.28
3.5
Elena Carter
19W–15L career · no lines in 2022
4%94%2%
3.23
Rebecca Cassilly
18W–15L career · no lines in 2022
4%94%2%
3.23
3.5
Carol Pfeiffer
9W–16L career · no lines in 2022
21%79%<1%
3.11
3.5
Dawn MacHonis
5W–9L career · no lines in 2022
21%79%<1%
3.10
Patti Bryan
16W–7L career · no lines in 2022
<1%53%47%
2.99
3
Avery Horgan
10W–22L career · no lines in 2022
<1%88%12%
2.85
LOUISA HARRISON
15W–17L career · no lines in 2022
2%95%3%
2.76
Jane Parrish
7W–13L career · no lines in 2022
2%95%3%
2.75
3
Gabriela Vazquez
1W–3L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Theresa Bartholomew
5W–10L career · no lines in 2022
7%92%1%
2.69
3
Farrah Stone
4W–5L career · type A · no lines in 2022
14%85%<1%
2.64
3
Diane Reale
9W–11L career · no lines in 2022
17%82%<1%
2.62
Rosita Torres
5W–16L career · no lines in 2022
34%66%<1%
2.55
Kimberlee Pepple
5W–10L career · no lines in 2022
52%48%<1%
2.50
2.5
Alla Lerner-Brandon
4W–11L career · no lines in 2022
0%>99%<1%
1.97
Kristin Lemon
0W–4L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Myrna Abed
4W–5L 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.