Teams

C3 ACAC Pfeiffer

2023 Richmond Adult 18 & Over Weekend · Richmond Adult 18 & Over 3.5 Women

19 players · average NTRP 3.50 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
W#1 SinglesNatalie Lewis vs Elizabeth Keith6-3, 6-4
L#1 SinglesNatalie Lewis vs Haidee Cline4-6, 4-6
2023-04-15vs C8 Woodlake DeckLost 01
L#1 SinglesNatalie Lewis vs Cindy Birnbaum2-6, 6-0, 0-1
2023-04-02vs C6 SCC SchwartzWon 10
W#1 SinglesNatalie Lewis vs Becky McNeer1-6, 6-1, 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 18 & Over 3.5 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 3.13 estimated across 18 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.

3.30
Lisa Smithson
published
3.29
Neki Grant
published
3.27
Yasmin Lutterbie
published
3.27
Lori Strobl
published
3.26
Jean Davis
published
3.25
Rebecca Cassilly
published
3.22
Nikki Callaghan
published
3.20
Deanne Ralston
published 3.5
3.17
Irene Quilez
published
3.16
Dawn Kelsey
published 3.5
3.14
Carol Pfeiffer
published 3.5
3.13
Natalie Lewis
usually #1 Singles 100% · published 3.5
3.11
Erika King
published
3.08
Joanne Wilson
published
3.02
Lisa Loudermilk
published
2.99
Patti Bryan
published
2.84
Mari Litz
published
2.69
Theresa Bartholomew
published
Lisa Aaron
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.

Rebecca Cassilly + Deanne Ralston3249% games−7.9% vs expected
Dawn Kelsey + Yasmin Lutterbie213 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.

Lisa Smithson
16W–7L career · no lines in 2023
2%91%7%
3.30
Neki Grant
8W–9L career · no lines in 2023
2%91%7%
3.29
Yasmin Lutterbie
7W–7L career · no lines in 2023
2%92%5%
3.27
Lori Strobl
27W–20L career · no lines in 2023
3%92%5%
3.27
Jean Davis
24W–22L career · no lines in 2023
3%92%4%
3.26
Rebecca Cassilly
18W–15L career · no lines in 2023
4%93%3%
3.25
Nikki Callaghan
6W–4L career · no lines in 2023
6%92%2%
3.22
3.5
Deanne Ralston
7W–7L career · no lines in 2023
8%91%2%
3.20
Irene Quilez
6W–12L career · no lines in 2023
12%87%1%
3.17
3.5
Dawn Kelsey
7W–11L career · no lines in 2023
12%87%1%
3.16
3.5
Carol Pfeiffer
9W–15L career · no lines in 2023
15%84%1%
3.14
3.5
Natalie Lewis
142W–127L career · 4 lines in 2023
18%82%<1%
3.13
Erika King
8W–8L career · no lines in 2023
21%79%<1%
3.11
Joanne Wilson
15W–15L career · no lines in 2023
29%71%<1%
3.08
Lisa Loudermilk
3W–5L career · no lines in 2023
44%56%<1%
3.02
Patti Bryan
16W–7L career · no lines in 2023
<1%53%47%
2.99
Mari Litz
7W–10L career · no lines in 2023
1%87%12%
2.84
Theresa Bartholomew
5W–10L career · no lines in 2023
8%90%1%
2.69
Lisa Aaron
1W–3L 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.