Teams

HCC Lines 7.0

2023 Richmond Flexible Format Women · Richmond Flexible Format Women 7.0

13 players · average NTRP 3.83 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2023-05-08vs Westwood SeredniWon 10
W#2 Female DoublesAMY LINES / Stephanie Yablonski vs Allison Woodruff / Margaret Kohler6-3, 6-0
2023-04-24vs Raintree EntersWon 10
W#2 Female DoublesAMY LINES / Abbey Orski vs Christine Martine / Amy Scherer6-0, 6-3
2023-04-10vs Woodlake HannonLost 01
L#1 Female DoublesStephanie Yablonski / Jennifer Gnapp vs Robin Oldt / Jennifer Harris2-6, 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 Flexible Format Women 7.0 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 3.38 estimated across 9 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.

3.97
AMY LINES
usually #2 Female Doubles 67%, also #1 Female Doubles 33% · published 4
3.84
Abbey Orski
published 4
3.63
Kathleen Crotty
published
3.54
Joanna Bergeron
published
3.38
Stephanie Yablonski
usually #1 Female Doubles 50%, also #2 Female Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.07
Sharon Mugford
published
3.04
Kimberly Ross
published
3.01
Kirsten Knull
published
2.92
Stacey Haug
published
Jennifer Polk
published
Kim Magnano
published
Marykay Stainback
published
Susan Mangin
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.

Stephanie Yablonski + AMY LINES18170% games+20.2% 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.

4
AMY LINES
220W–87L career · 3 lines in 2023
<1%58%42%
3.97
4
Abbey Orski
15W–10L career · no lines in 2023
<1%89%11%
3.84
Kathleen Crotty
19W–11L career · no lines in 2023
15%85%<1%
3.63
Joanna Bergeron
18W–10L career · no lines in 2023
38%62%<1%
3.54
3.5
Stephanie Yablonski
124W–88L career · 2 lines in 2023
<1%82%17%
3.38
Sharon Mugford
6W–11L career · no lines in 2023
30%70%<1%
3.07
Kimberly Ross
11W–5L career · no lines in 2023
37%63%<1%
3.04
Kirsten Knull
4W–4L career · no lines in 2023
46%54%<1%
3.01
Stacey Haug
20W–20L career · no lines in 2023
<1%74%26%
2.92
Jennifer Polk
1W–2L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Kim Magnano
2W–0L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Marykay Stainback
1W–4L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Susan Mangin
2W–0L 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.