← Teams

ACAC Krebs

2022 Richmond Singles · Richmond Singles 3.5 Women

11 players · average NTRP 3.60 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule8 played
2022-08-25vs MAC ScottWon 1–0
W#3 SinglesNatalie Lewis vs Michelle Mouer6-2, 6-3
2022-08-18vs KRA WalekWon 1–0
W#2 SinglesNatalie Lewis vs Lauren Turner6-1, 6-0
2022-08-15vs ACAC WeddleWon 2–0
W#1 SinglesChristina Aeinan Kang vs Robin Griffith6-2, 6-3
W#2 SinglesNatalie Lewis vs Rebecca Cassilly6-1, 6-4
2022-08-11vs RMC SherdelWon 2–0
W#1 SinglesNatalie Lewis vs Tina Carter6-2, 6-1
W#3 SinglesElizabeth Coleman vs Rashelle Hayes6-1, 6-3
2022-08-05vs Westwood BurkeWon 1–0
W#2 SinglesChristina Aeinan Kang vs Marta Honey6-3, 6-1
2022-07-21vs CCV CampbellLost 1–2
W#1 SinglesChristina Aeinan Kang vs Thornton Lambert6-3, 4-6, 1-0
L#2 SinglesElizabeth Coleman vs Ashley Millen4-6, 2-6
L#3 SinglesFaith Kallman vs Amanda Galanti4-6, 2-6
2022-07-20Lost 0–1
L#3 SinglesFaith Kallman vs Alison Bernier0-6, 3-6
2022-07-14vs HCC 3.5 WalshSplit 1–1
W#1 SinglesChristina Aeinan Kang vs Traci Lantzy6-2, 6-1
L#2 SinglesNatalie Lewis vs AMY LINES7-6, 4-6, 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 3.33 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.

4.03
Aimee Vaughn
published 4
3.65
Christina Aeinan Kang
usually #1 Singles 75%, also #2 Singles 25% · published 4
3.51
Elham Tavassoli
published 3.5
3.43
Lauren Bale
published —
3.27
Brittany Krebs
published 3.5
3.21
Elizabeth Coleman
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #3 Singles 50% · published 3.5
3.21
Anne Saunier
published 3.5
3.10
Dawn MacHonis
published 3.5
3.10
Natalie Lewis
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #3 Singles 33% · published 3.5
3.10
Sandra Holahan
published 3.5
3.06
Faith Kallman
usually #3 Singles 100% · published 3.5
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.

Brittany Krebs + Elizabeth Coleman8–455% games−10.1% vs expected
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
Aimee Vaughn
45W–7L career · no lines in 2022
<1%40%60%
4.03
4
Christina Aeinan Kang
157W–167L career · 4 lines in 2022
13%87%<1%
3.65
3.5
Elham Tavassoli
59W–43L career · no lines in 2022
<1%48%52%
3.51
—
Lauren Bale
6W–4L career · no lines in 2022
<1%69%31%
3.43
3.5
Brittany Krebs
99W–85L career · no lines in 2022
2%94%4%
3.27
3.5
Elizabeth Coleman
172W–119L career · 2 lines in 2022
5%94%1%
3.21
3.5
Anne Saunier
20W–29L career · no lines in 2022
5%94%1%
3.21
3.5
Dawn MacHonis
5W–9L career · no lines in 2022
21%79%<1%
3.10
3.5
Natalie Lewis
142W–128L career · 6 lines in 2022
21%79%<1%
3.10
3.5
Sandra Holahan
59W–94L career · no lines in 2022
22%78%<1%
3.10
3.5
Faith Kallman
205W–166L career · 2 lines in 2022
34%66%<1%
3.06

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.