Stonehenge Swingers
2026 Richmond Tri-Level Weeknight · Richmond Tri-Level Weeknight 3.5, 3.0, 2.5 Women
10 players · average NTRP 2.67 / VIRGINIA
Schedule6 played
i
Flight standings21 teams · Richmond Tri-Level Weeknight 3.5, 3.0, 2.5 Women
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1Hermitage Thompson | 4 | 0 | 2 | 54 |
| 2Westwood Zach | 4 | 0 | 3 | 57 |
| 3SCC Slice Girls - Weisiger | 3 | 1 | 11 | 98 |
| 4Westwood Bowman Broads | 3 | 1 | 11 | 103 |
| 5Ridgetop O'Hara | 3 | 1 | 13 | 95 |
| 6Stonehenge Swingers | 3 | 1 | 13 | 113 |
| 7KRA Anderson Bald | 2 | 1 | 5 | 68 |
| 8Woodlake Cabral | 2 | 1 | 7 | 59 |
| 9HCC Rudolph | 2 | 2 | 10 | 76 |
| 10Ridgetop Pugh | 2 | 2 | 14 | 109 |
| 11MTC - Biringer/Hannon | 2 | 2 | 14 | 108 |
| 12Westwood Tri Hards - Mancini | 2 | 2 | 15 | 107 |
| 13Acac Kelsey/Davis | 2 | 2 | 15 | 116 |
| 14Avalon Holsinger | 1 | 2 | 12 | 85 |
| 15Bon Air Triple Powers | 1 | 3 | 15 | 107 |
| 16ACAC Tri Squad - Abed | 1 | 3 | 16 | 117 |
| 17RCC Wozniak | 1 | 3 | 17 | 118 |
| 18MAC Maniacs Bates | 1 | 3 | 18 | 130 |
| 19Bon Air Metz | 1 | 3 | 20 | 129 |
| 20Canterbury - Keller | 0 | 3 | 15 | 102 |
| 21TCRC Tri-Umph - Priddy | 0 | 4 | 21 | 132 |
Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.
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 2.85 estimated across 10 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.
Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.
| Sarah Brinkley + Vickie Hall | 6–0 | 58% games | −5.9% vs expected |
| Stephanie Bridges + Elizabeth Danowski | 4–0 | 4 matches | not enough data |
| Caitlin Osborne + Martha Pratt | 2–1 | 3 matches | not enough data |
| Caitlin Osborne + Emily Huss | 0–3 | 3 matches | not enough data |
| Stephanie Bridges + Sarah Brinkley | 2–1 | 3 matches | not enough data |
| Courtney Swecker + Martha Pratt | 3–0 | 3 matches | not enough data |
| Elizabeth Danowski + Vickie Hall | 0–3 | 3 matches | not enough data |
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.
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.