Teams

A8 KRA CZYZZLES

2023 Richmond Combo Weekend · Richmond Combo 6.5 Women

15 players · average NTRP 3.00 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2023-08-27vs A6 Belmont SherdelWon 10
W#3 DoublesEllen Featherstone / Sara Winterhoff vs Rashelle Hayes / Heather Scott6-4, 6-0
2023-08-20vs A1 ACAC Hoefer/KrebsWon 10
W#1 DoublesKatherine Fleck / Katherine Czyszczon vs Julie Rison / Alice Albright6-0, 6-1
2023-08-10vs A4 Sal's Berries BrownWon 10
W#2 DoublesSara Anderson / Sara Winterhoff vs Bernie Spichiger / Elizabeth Matish6-4, 6-1
2023-07-25vs A5 Dominion Navolio/ SweeneyLost 02
L#1 DoublesSara Winterhoff / Ann Brown vs Melissa MacAleese / Elaine McCormick2-6, 7-5, 0-1
L#2 DoublesKatherine Fleck / Laura Pleasants vs Ann Michele Sweeney / Alison Spelbring3-6, 6-1, 0-1
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 Combo 6.5 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 3.08 estimated across 14 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.

3.62
Melanie Spears
published
3.43
Mansi Shah
published
3.40
Elaine Costello
published
3.34
Katherine Czyszczon
published
3.31
Katherine Fleck
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published
3.29
Sara Winterhoff
usually #1 Doubles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.04
Sule Sauvigne
published
2.94
Kerri Green
published
2.88
Ellen Featherstone
published
2.83
Ashley Page
published 3
2.82
Heather DeBolt
published
2.79
Maureen Bannister
published
2.79
Stewart Lester
published
2.68
Anne Walker
published 3
Sara Anderson
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.

Katherine Fleck + Sara Winterhoff141645% games−4.7% vs expected
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.

Melanie Spears
3W–5L career · no lines in 2023
21%79%<1%
3.62
Mansi Shah
4W–2L career · no lines in 2023
70%30%<1%
3.43
Elaine Costello
7W–5L career · no lines in 2023
<1%76%24%
3.40
Katherine Czyszczon
1W–7L career · no lines in 2023
87%13%<1%
3.34
Katherine Fleck
64W–60L career · 2 lines in 2023
1%90%9%
3.31
Sara Winterhoff
97W–83L career · 3 lines in 2023
2%91%7%
3.29
Sule Sauvigne
10W–14L career · no lines in 2023
39%61%<1%
3.04
Kerri Green
1W–5L career · no lines in 2023
66%34%<1%
2.94
Ellen Featherstone
12W–14L career · no lines in 2023
<1%79%21%
2.88
3
Ashley Page
3W–7L career · no lines in 2023
1%88%11%
2.83
Heather DeBolt
23W–31L career · no lines in 2023
1%89%10%
2.82
Maureen Bannister
5W–7L career · no lines in 2023
2%91%7%
2.79
Stewart Lester
8W–13L career · no lines in 2023
2%91%7%
2.79
3
Anne Walker
7W–9L career · no lines in 2023
10%89%1%
2.68
Sara Anderson
2W–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.