Teams

12 MAC Scott

2023 Richmond Adult 18 & Over Weekend · Richmond Adult 18 & Over 4.0 Women

13 players · average NTRP 4.00 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule8 played
2023-06-04vs 8 RMC FlowersWon 30
W#1 SinglesDelaney Rhodus vs Katherine Lawrence6-3, 6-2
W#2 DoublesTherese Jones / Susanne Nazur vs Stacy Gregor / Kathy Flowers6-3, 6-2
W#3 DoublesTanisha Moseley / Leigh Ann Barker vs N/A6-0, 6-0
2023-05-27vs 6 Westwood ColemanLost 12
W#1 DoublesDelaney Rhodus / Debbie Messmer vs Barbara Hassett / Beth Lane6-2, 6-4
L#2 DoublesKristi King / Tanisha Moseley vs Katherine Coleman / Leslie Altaffer1-6, 2-6
L#3 DoublesSusanne Nazur / Emily Huang vs Karen Anne Gates / Ellie StJohn3-6, 1-6
2023-05-20vs 5 Burkwood JennifersSplit 22
W#1 DoublesLeigh Ann Barker / Tanisha Moseley vs Susan Powell / Kimberley Winn4-6, 6-2, 1-0
L#2 DoublesKristi King / Debbie Messmer vs Kim Weis / Jennifer Owens1-6, 2-6
W#2 SinglesDelaney Rhodus vs Christine Polk7-6, 6-1
L#3 DoublesKimberly Livingston / Therese Jones vs Grace Fell / Kathy Denunzio3-6, 4-6
2023-05-13vs 2 Willow Oaks MayerLost 13
L#1 DoublesDebbie Messmer / Katherine Faraci vs Sharon Fuller / Laura Granger6-7, 5-7
W#2 DoublesHeather Barefoot / Leigh Ann Barker vs Kelly Stalls / Lucia O'Connell6-3, 6-4
L#2 SinglesEmily Huang vs Mansi Shah5-7, 3-6
L#3 DoublesTherese Jones / Deirdre Vaughan vs Ingrid Hale / Darlene Moehling6-3, 1-6, 0-1
2023-04-29vs 11 Fox Hall RowlandWon 21
W#1 DoublesDebbie Messmer / Delaney Rhodus vs Meredith Nusbaum / Sherri Phillips6-1, 6-1
W#2 DoublesSusanne Nazur / Emily Huang vs Mallika Chary / Kerry Torres1-6, 6-4, 1-0
L#3 DoublesLeigh Ann Barker / Tanisha Moseley vs Carolyn Moncure / Michele Riedel4-6, 7-6, 1-0
2023-04-26vs 7 MRTC Williams 4.0Won 21
L#1 DoublesTanisha Moseley / Leigh Ann Barker vs Rochelle Purmasir / Amanda Kilfoil6-7, 5-7
W#1 SinglesDelaney Rhodus vs Ariel Selwyn6-2, 6-3
W#2 DoublesDebbie Messmer / Katherine Faraci vs Pamela Ryon / Margaret Shultz6-3, 6-1
2023-04-22vs 9 JRHS Delisio/MarksWon 21
L#1 DoublesHeather Barefoot / Tanisha Moseley vs Jeanine Wisor / Johanna Farrell1-6, 7-5, 0-1
W#2 DoublesDebbie Messmer / Mary Scott vs Cindy Clark / Megan Abel7-5, 6-2
W#3 DoublesTherese Jones / Leigh Ann Barker vs Pam Vossenberg / Elham Tavassoli7-6, 7-5
2023-04-10vs 3 Belmont StewartWon 21
L#1 DoublesKristi King / Heather Barefoot vs Dana Wilson / Kelly Naughton6-7, 3-6
W#2 DoublesDebbie Messmer / Katherine Faraci vs Victoria Bradt / Emily Chaikin7-6, 6-4
W#2 SinglesEmily Huang vs Patricia Riester6-2, 6-2
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 18 & Over 4.0 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 3.62 estimated across 12 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.

4.16
Delaney Rhodus
usually #2 Singles 44%, also #1 Singles 22% · published 4.5
4.02
Katherine McDowell
published
3.85
Debbie Messmer
usually #2 Doubles 57%, also #1 Doubles 43% · published 4
3.77
Heather Barefoot
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.73
Emily Huang
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 4
3.69
Leigh Ann Barker
published
3.64
Tanisha Moseley
usually #3 Doubles 40%, also #1 Doubles 30% · published 4
3.42
Kimberly Livingston
published
3.29
Mary Scott
published
3.29
Therese Jones
usually #3 Doubles 75%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published
3.28
Deirdre Vaughan
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #2 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.27
Susanne Nazur
published
Kaitlyn Mejia
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.

Tanisha Moseley + Debbie Messmer5548% games−8.9% vs expected
Debbie Messmer + Delaney Rhodus10169% gamesnot enough data
Therese Jones + Debbie Messmer6448% gamesnot enough data
Heather Barefoot + Debbie Messmer4452% gamesnot enough data
Tanisha Moseley + Heather Barefoot2544% gamesnot enough data
Therese Jones + Deirdre Vaughan3252% gamesnot enough data
Therese Jones + Emily Huang314 matchesnot enough data
Tanisha Moseley + Delaney Rhodus314 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.

4.5
Delaney Rhodus
132W–86L career · 9 lines in 2023
11%88%<1%
4.16
Katherine McDowell
18W–7L career · no lines in 2023
<1%44%56%
4.02
4
Debbie Messmer
234W–156L career · 7 lines in 2023
<1%87%12%
3.85
4
Heather Barefoot
135W–125L career · 3 lines in 2023
2%94%4%
3.77
4
Emily Huang
44W–58L career · 4 lines in 2023
4%94%2%
3.73
Leigh Ann Barker
7W–14L career · no lines in 2023
7%92%1%
3.69
4
Tanisha Moseley
154W–148L career · 10 lines in 2023
13%86%<1%
3.64
Kimberly Livingston
5W–3L career · no lines in 2023
<1%72%28%
3.42
Mary Scott
18W–12L career · no lines in 2023
94%6%<1%
3.29
Therese Jones
88W–122L career · 4 lines in 2023
1%93%5%
3.29
3.5
Deirdre Vaughan
162W–178L career · 8 lines in 2023
2%94%4%
3.28
Susanne Nazur
2W–10L career · no lines in 2023
2%94%4%
3.27
Kaitlyn Mejia
5W–1L career · no lines in 2023
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.