Teams

4 ACAC Tandett

2022 Richmond Combo Weekday Women · Richmond Combo Weekday 5.5 Women

16 players · average NTRP 3.07 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2022-08-01vs 1 Hermitage Lines 5.5Won 10
W#1 DoublesBarbara Kasten / Myrna Abed vs Kimberly Ross / Kimberly Way6-0, 6-1
2022-07-06vs 3 Salisbury WeisigerLost 01
L#1 DoublesCatherine Long / Barbara Kasten vs Colleen Weisiger / Beth Dwyer3-6, 3-6
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 Combo Weekday 5.5 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 2.76 estimated across 13 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.

3.38
Allison Krumpe
published 3.5
3.36
Jodi Tandett
published
3.29
Anne Townsend
published 3.5
3.26
Stacy McLeod
published
3.25
Barbara Kasten
usually #1 Doubles 80%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published 3.5
2.78
Tamsin Hepner
published
2.70
Nicky Granback
published
2.66
Jackie Granger
published 3
2.42
Catherine Long
published 3
2.29
Jenessa Lopez
published
Elizabeth Bock
published 2.5
2.19
Michele Mulloy
published
2.17
Caroline Wheeler
published 2.5
2.11
Zeeba Bankley
published
Myrna Abed
published
Toosdhi Jackson
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.

Jodi Tandett + Barbara Kasten123 matchesnot enough data
Jenessa Lopez + Caroline Wheeler033 matchesnot enough data
Michele Mulloy + Caroline Wheeler033 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.

3.5
Allison Krumpe
13W–11L career · no lines in 2022
<1%83%17%
3.38
Jodi Tandett
18W–12L career · no lines in 2022
<1%85%14%
3.36
3.5
Anne Townsend
33W–23L career · no lines in 2022
1%94%5%
3.29
Stacy McLeod
15W–10L career · no lines in 2022
2%94%3%
3.26
3.5
Barbara Kasten
158W–66L career · 5 lines in 2022
3%95%3%
3.25
Tamsin Hepner
8W–13L career · no lines in 2022
2%94%5%
2.78
Nicky Granback
7W–12L career · no lines in 2022
7%92%1%
2.70
3
Jackie Granger
20W–14L career · no lines in 2022
11%89%<1%
2.66
3
Catherine Long
11W–10L career · type A · no lines in 2022
72%28%<1%
2.42
Jenessa Lopez
29W–25L career · no lines in 2022
0%94%6%
2.29
2.5
Elizabeth Bock
2W–10L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Michele Mulloy
4W–4L career · no lines in 2022
0%99%1%
2.19
2.5
Caroline Wheeler
14W–23L career · no lines in 2022
0%99%1%
2.17
Zeeba Bankley
3W–9L career · no lines in 2022
0%>99%<1%
2.11
Myrna Abed
4W–5L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Toosdhi Jackson
2W–6L career · no lines in 2022
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.