Teams

Avalon Pearsall / Sanne

2023 Richmond Tri-Level 18 & Over Weekday · Richmond Tri-Level 4.0, 3.5, 3.0 Weekday

10 players · average NTRP 3.75 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule7 played
2023-11-03vs SCC GilbertWon 10
W#1 DoublesKristin Tetterton / Lila LaCroix vs Lora Scott / Sara Manners6-2, 7-6
2023-10-27vs HCC WilliamsLost 01
L#1 DoublesLila LaCroix / Meghan Pearsall vs Abbey Orski / Pam Walsh4-6, 3-6
2023-10-20vs ACAC TandettLost 01
L#1 DoublesNancy Mihalko / Lucinda Stuckey vs Kelly Naughton / Kate Zachry2-6, 2-6
2023-10-13vs WOCC Smith / MoehlingWon 10
W#1 DoublesKristin Tetterton / Nancy Mihalko vs Melissa Forrester / Natalie Dunton6-1, 2-6, 1-0
2023-10-06vs Woodlake CookseyLost 01
L#1 DoublesKristin Tetterton / Judiann Drash vs Marcy Kozlowski / Brooke Teefey5-7, 3-6
2023-09-15vs MTC Jolinski / PattersonLost 01
L#1 DoublesLucinda Stuckey / Nancy Mihalko vs Susan Nothnagle / Lindsay Hardage0-6, 6-7
2023-09-08vs Westwood BerryWon 10
W#1 DoublesLila LaCroix / Lucinda Stuckey vs Sarah Oatts / Laura Strickler3-6, 6-3, 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 Tri-Level 4.0, 3.5, 3.0 Weekday 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 3.42 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.

3.82
Kristin Tetterton
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.53
Lila LaCroix
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.43
Karen Devalk
published
3.40
Michele Riedel
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.38
Meghan Pearsall
published
3.37
Nancy Mihalko
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.28
Jennifer Manring
published
3.15
Sarah Treharne
published
Judiann Drash
published
Lisa Voeks
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.

Lila LaCroix + Kristin Tetterton3258% gamesnot 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
Kristin Tetterton
155W–104L career · 3 lines in 2023
1%91%8%
3.82
4
Lila LaCroix
70W–101L career · 3 lines in 2023
41%59%<1%
3.53
Karen Devalk
3W–6L career · no lines in 2023
70%30%<1%
3.43
3.5
Michele Riedel
71W–114L career · 4 lines in 2023
<1%78%22%
3.40
Meghan Pearsall
1W–4L career · no lines in 2023
81%19%<1%
3.38
3.5
Nancy Mihalko
182W–109L career · 3 lines in 2023
<1%84%16%
3.37
Jennifer Manring
20W–18L career · no lines in 2023
2%94%4%
3.28
Sarah Treharne
9W–4L career · no lines in 2023
<1%13%87%
3.15
Judiann Drash
1W–1L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Lisa Voeks
0W–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.