Teams

TCRC-Hall

2026 Richmond Adult 55 & Over Weeknight Women · Richmond Adult 55 & Over Weeknight 7.0 Women

9 players · average NTRP 3.00 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule9 played
2026-08-03vs TDC Moorefield 55+ weeknightLost 03
L#1 DoublesKatherine Mortimer / C Suzanne Finley vs Deborah Eldridge / Lisa Drucker4-6, 6-7
L#2 DoublesCarol Draper / Pam Berger vs Brenda Ackerman / Laura Wheeler2-6, 5-7
L#3 DoublesBarbara Cosby / Pamela Hughes vs Sharon Moorefield / Kim Spillare2-6, 1-6
2026-07-27vs WOCC SampsonWon 21
W#1 DoublesKatherine Mortimer / Carolyn Elgin vs Catherine Plageman / Mary Scott Swanson7-6, 6-2
W#2 DoublesCarol Draper / C Suzanne Finley vs Catherine Matawaran / Beth Kelly6-3, 7-5
L#3 DoublesPamela Hughes / Barbara Cosby vs Meda Lane / Linda O'Mara4-6, 3-6
2026-07-23vs Burkwood ClarkLost 03
L#1 DoublesShelly Galles / Carolyn Elgin vs Sandy Cook / Modestine Carter7-5, 1-6, 0-1
L#2 DoublesKatherine Mortimer / Donna Hall vs Lisa Wylam / Marie Browning5-7, 2-6
L#3 DoublesNancy Priddy / Pam Berger vs Frances Poehler / Virginia Bowie2-6, 2-6
2026-07-20vs ACAC-Hoefer/LaRueLost 03
L#1 DoublesShelly Galles / Carolyn Elgin vs Carol Hoefer / Tatiana Smirnov2-6, 1-6
L#2 DoublesDonna Hall / Pam Berger vs Anne Saunier / Catherine Estes1-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesNancy Priddy / Pamela Hughes vs Virginia Nelson / Melody Morton0-6, 0-6
2026-07-16vs Woodlake CookseyLost 03
L#1 DoublesCarolyn Elgin / Donna Hall vs Laurie Cooksey / Brooke Teefey2-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesC Suzanne Finley / Pam Berger vs Denise Giaccone / Susan Zielinski1-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesNancy Priddy / Pamela Hughes vs Lisa Giangregorio / Robin Oldt1-6, 0-6
2026-07-13vs Acac Kelsey/PfeifferLost 03
L#1 DoublesShelly Galles / Katherine Mortimer vs Victoria Bradt / Anne Townsend3-6, 5-7
L#2 DoublesCarol Draper / Pam Berger vs Dawn Kelsey / Lisa Smithson0-6, 0-6
L#3 DoublesNancy Priddy / Barbara Cosby vs Mary Knick / Jennifer Booth0-6, 1-6
2026-06-29vs Bon Air RhodesLost 03
L#1 DoublesShelly Galles / Carolyn Elgin vs Kelli Ball / Shanan Raines6-4, 2-6, 0-1
L#2 DoublesKatherine Mortimer / Donna Hall vs Nancy Metz / Erika Anderson6-1, 4-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesC Suzanne Finley / Carol Draper vs Janet Miller / Robin Balsamo1-6, 3-6
2026-06-25vs Westwood - Payne/WestLost 12
W#1 DoublesDonna Hall / Shelly Galles vs Rose Yuen / Meredith Berger6-3, 5-7, 1-0
L#2 DoublesC Suzanne Finley / Pam Berger vs Caren Payne / Allison Woodruff0-6, 0-6
L#3 DoublesCarol Draper / Nancy Priddy vs Heather Harker / Molly McEvoy0-6, 5-7
2026-06-15vs Stephens Senioritas-ACACLost 03
L#1 DoublesShelly Galles / Carolyn Elgin vs Gail Cavallaro / Tracey Watson7-6, 5-7, 1-0
L#2 DoublesDonna Hall / Pam Berger vs Silvia Sykes / Ann Yates6-3, 2-6, 1-0
L#3 DoublesBarbara Cosby / Carol Draper vs Betsy Civilette / Diane Linderman1-6, 0-6
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 55 & Over Weeknight 7.0 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 8 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.

3.07
Donna Hall
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
2.93
Katherine Mortimer
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published
2.80
Pam Berger
usually #2 Doubles 86%, also #3 Doubles 14% · published
2.77
C Suzanne Finley
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #3 Doubles 20% · published 3
2.76
Nancy Priddy
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
2.64
Carol Draper
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 50% · published 3
2.63
Carolyn Elgin
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3
2.56
Barbara Cosby
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 3
Shelly Galles
usually #1 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.

C Suzanne Finley + Pam Berger3838% games−4.3% vs expected
Katherine Mortimer + Carolyn Elgin3442% games−7.9% vs expected
Nancy Priddy + Carolyn Elgin0538% gamesnot enough data
Donna Hall + Pam Berger0528% gamesnot enough data
Nancy Priddy + Pam Berger044 matchesnot enough data
Donna Hall + Carolyn Elgin134 matchesnot enough data
Carolyn Elgin + Shelly Galles044 matchesnot enough data
Nancy Priddy + C Suzanne Finley033 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.

Donna Hall
14W–20L career · 6 lines in 2026
31%69%<1%
3.07
Katherine Mortimer
7W–22L career · 5 lines in 2026
68%32%<1%
2.93
Pam Berger
3W–30L career · 7 lines in 2026
93%7%<1%
2.80
3
C Suzanne Finley
8W–20L career · 5 lines in 2026
3%92%5%
2.77
Nancy Priddy
3W–24L career · 5 lines in 2026
95%5%<1%
2.76
3
Carol Draper
1W–9L career · 6 lines in 2026
15%84%1%
2.64
3
Carolyn Elgin
7W–20L career · 6 lines in 2026
17%82%<1%
2.63
3
Barbara Cosby
0W–9L career · type S · 4 lines in 2026
35%65%<1%
2.56
Shelly Galles
4W–10L career · 6 lines in 2026
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.