Teams

ACAC Granger

2025 Richmond Adult 40 & Over Weekend · Richmond Adult 40 & Over Weekend 3.0 Women

20 players · average NTRP 3.00 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2025-07-05vs WOCC Hamlin HammersLost 12
W#2 DoublesMichelle Lilly / Brooke Olson vs Juliet Dagostino / Michelle Ha6-1, 6-1
L#3 DoublesLaura Worrel / Jeanne Sarmento vs Meda Lane / Catherine Matawaran2-6, 4-6
L#4 DoublesEmma Peskind / Mary Carlson vs Katie Bressler / Amy Broderick3-6, 7-5, 0-1
2025-07-05vs MTC 3.0 Williams - ChenevertWon 32
W#1 DoublesAshley Curtis / Kari Bivins vs Sunanda Desai / Dana Chenevert6-4, 6-4
L#1 SinglesMarian Gorbutt vs Micol Hutchison1-6, 1-6
W#2 DoublesKelley Kent / Tatiana Bueno vs Lauren Williams / Jennifer Conrad6-2, 6-2
L#3 DoublesMary Carlson / Kristin Gray vs Sky Lee / Candice Duncan5-7, 1-6
W#4 DoublesEmma Peskind / Jeanne Sarmento vs Karin Wallace / Karen Fowkes6-3, 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 Adult 40 & Over Weekend 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 2.77 estimated across 16 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.

3.13
Kari Bivins
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.06
Kelley Kent
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.04
Michelle Lilly
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
2.96
Mary Wagoner
published
2.94
Raven Fisher
published
2.89
Ashley Curtis
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.88
Jeanne Sarmento
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #4 Doubles 50% · published
2.85
Brooke Olson
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.79
Mary Follis
published
2.79
Abbe Voigt
published 3
2.68
Kristin Gray
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.66
Jackie Granger
published 3
2.62
Ali Silva
published 3
2.45
Emma Peskind
usually #4 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.32
Marian Gorbutt
usually #1 Singles 100% · published
2.30
Mary Carlson
usually #4 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published
Jill Bolinger
published
Laura Worrel
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Peggy Bel
published
Tatiana Bueno
usually #2 Doubles 100% · 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.

Raven Fisher + Ashley Curtis7359% games+10.5% vs expected
Kari Bivins + Michelle Lilly10163% games+9.7% vs expected
Jackie Granger + Mary Follis5059% games+5.8% vs expected
Kelley Kent + Brooke Olson7256% games+1.0% vs expected
Kristin Gray + Ali Silva2355% games−0.5% vs expected
Mary Follis + Mary Carlson2345% games−1.1% vs expected
Jill Bolinger + Jackie Granger213 matchesnot enough data
Abbe Voigt + Jackie Granger303 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.

Kari Bivins
44W–19L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%15%85%
3.13
Kelley Kent
57W–27L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%34%66%
3.06
Michelle Lilly
50W–28L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%37%63%
3.04
Mary Wagoner
25W–12L career · no lines in 2025
<1%62%38%
2.96
Raven Fisher
46W–19L career · no lines in 2025
<1%67%33%
2.94
3
Ashley Curtis
47W–21L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%80%20%
2.89
Jeanne Sarmento
41W–16L career · 2 lines in 2025
<1%82%17%
2.88
3
Brooke Olson
31W–19L career · 1 line in 2025
<1%87%13%
2.85
Mary Follis
28W–25L career · no lines in 2025
1%93%6%
2.79
3
Abbe Voigt
8W–6L career · no lines in 2025
1%93%5%
2.79
Kristin Gray
5W–8L career · 1 line in 2025
8%91%1%
2.68
3
Jackie Granger
20W–14L career · no lines in 2025
11%89%<1%
2.66
3
Ali Silva
8W–15L career · no lines in 2025
18%82%<1%
2.62
3
Emma Peskind
15W–28L career · type A · 3 lines in 2025
66%34%<1%
2.45
Marian Gorbutt
2W–15L career · 1 line in 2025
91%9%<1%
2.32
Mary Carlson
10W–13L career · 2 lines in 2025
0%94%6%
2.30
Jill Bolinger
7W–4L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Laura Worrel
5W–8L career · 1 line in 2025
not enough data
Peggy Bel
2W–3L career · no lines in 2025
not enough data
Tatiana Bueno
7W–7L career · 1 line in 2025
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.