Teams

ACAC Callaghan / Bartholomew

2021 Richmond Adult 18 & Over Weekday Women · Richmond Weekday Adult 18 & Over Women 3.5

12 players · average NTRP 3.50 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2021-06-28vs Raintree ReedLost 02
L#1 SinglesChristina Aeinan Kang vs Lorraine Harvey3-6, 7-5, 1-0
L#2 SinglesMary Knick vs Shannon Webb4-6, 3-6
2021-06-23vs WOCC PommersheimLost 02
L#1 SinglesChristina Aeinan Kang vs Laura Granger1-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesNikki Callaghan / Martinique Kandl vs Sandy Pisano / Patricia Moore3-6, 4-6
2021-06-16Won 20
W#1 SinglesChristina Aeinan Kang vs Vanessa Jones6-4, 6-2
W#2 SinglesMary Knick vs N/A6-0, 6-0
2021-06-09vs Salisbury AndrewsWon 20
W#1 SinglesChristina Aeinan Kang vs Susan Hicklin6-0, 6-0
W#2 DoublesTheresa Bartholomew / Mary Knick vs Melissa Brunner-Brown / Becky McNeer7-5, 5-7, 1-0
2021-06-02vs CCV Levy / GoodwinWon 10
W#2 SinglesChristina Aeinan Kang vs Kim Cressy6-1, 6-2
2021-05-26vs TDC LongWon 10
W#1 SinglesChristina Aeinan Kang vs Deb Holden6-1, 6-1
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 Weekday Adult 18 & Over Women 3.5 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 3.12 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.

3.65
Christina Aeinan Kang
usually #1 Singles 83%, also #2 Singles 17% · published 4
3.46
Martinique Kandl
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.34
Mary Knick
usually #2 Singles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.23
Nikki Callaghan
published
3.16
Dawn Kelsey
published 3.5
3.15
Irene Quilez
published 3.5
3.13
Trisha Smith
published
2.95
Karen Grimes
published
2.95
Hilary Brodsky
published 3.5
2.69
Theresa Bartholomew
published
2.66
Jackie Granger
published 3
Judy Blake
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.

4
Christina Aeinan Kang
157W–167L career · 6 lines in 2021
13%87%<1%
3.65
3.5
Martinique Kandl
167W–65L career · 1 line in 2021
<1%63%37%
3.46
3.5
Mary Knick
204W–130L career · 3 lines in 2021
<1%89%11%
3.34
Nikki Callaghan
6W–4L career · no lines in 2021
4%94%2%
3.23
3.5
Dawn Kelsey
7W–11L career · no lines in 2021
11%89%<1%
3.16
3.5
Irene Quilez
4W–12L career · no lines in 2021
12%88%<1%
3.15
Trisha Smith
4W–3L career · no lines in 2021
16%83%<1%
3.13
Karen Grimes
0W–7L career · no lines in 2021
65%35%<1%
2.95
3.5
Hilary Brodsky
2W–8L career · no lines in 2021
66%34%<1%
2.95
Theresa Bartholomew
5W–10L career · no lines in 2021
7%92%1%
2.69
3
Jackie Granger
20W–14L career · no lines in 2021
11%89%<1%
2.66
Judy Blake
6W–10L career · no lines in 2021
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.