Teams

Kanawha Piepgrass / Walton

2021 Richmond Adult 18 & Over Weekday Women · Richmond Weekday Adult 18 & Over Women 3.5

12 players · average NTRP 3.69 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2021-06-23vs Salisbury CacciottiWon 10
W#1 DoublesSarah Dickinson / Katy Hottinger vs Julie Kearfott / Sarah Boyd3-6, 7-6, 1-0
2021-06-22vs TDC Spillare 3.5Lost 01
L#1 DoublesKatie Gerecke / Wendy Daniel vs Nicole Wyman / Patricia Hogan1-6, 3-6
2021-06-16vs Westwood Hause 3.5Lost 01
L#1 DoublesSarah Dickinson / Wendy Daniel vs Michelle Baker / Liza Hause1-6, 2-6
2021-06-09vs Burkwood JohnsonWon 10
W#1 DoublesKatie Gerecke / Lisa Voeks vs Tricia Jones / Lynne Moore6-1, 6-3
2021-05-26vs RCC GnappWon 10
W#1 DoublesSarah Dickinson / Katie Gerecke vs Betsy Siewers / Jennifer Gnapp6-3, 6-3
2021-05-21vs ACAC DoblerWon 10
W#1 DoublesKatie Gerecke / Wendy Daniel vs Mary Kellner / Tatiana Smirnov6-2, 6-1
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 Weekday Adult 18 & Over Women 3.5 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 3.32 estimated across 10 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.

3.88
Emily Gravitt
published 4
3.77
Sarah Dickinson
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.56
Katie Gerecke
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.31
Katy Hottinger
published
Annie Gushman
published 3.5
3.23
Britta Petersson
published 3.5
3.19
Wendy Daniel
published
3.12
Carin Krawitz
published 3.5
3.09
Angela Mackay
published 3.5
3.04
Laurie Barnes
published
3.00
Christine Martine
published 3.5
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.

Katie Gerecke + Sarah Dickinson4445% 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
Emily Gravitt
3W–6L career · no lines in 2021
<1%83%17%
3.88
4
Sarah Dickinson
47W–44L career · 3 lines in 2021
2%94%4%
3.77
4
Katie Gerecke
110W–125L career · 7 lines in 2021
34%66%<1%
3.56
Katy Hottinger
25W–11L career · no lines in 2021
1%92%7%
3.31
3.5
Annie Gushman
1W–2L career · no lines in 2021
not enough data
3.5
Britta Petersson
9W–7L career · no lines in 2021
4%94%2%
3.23
Wendy Daniel
15W–18L career · no lines in 2021
7%92%1%
3.19
3.5
Carin Krawitz
3W–6L career · no lines in 2021
19%81%<1%
3.12
3.5
Angela Mackay
1W–3L career · no lines in 2021
25%75%<1%
3.09
Laurie Barnes
1W–5L career · no lines in 2021
37%63%<1%
3.04
3.5
Christine Martine
4W–10L career · type A · no lines in 2021
51%49%<1%
3.00
Lisa Voeks
0W–1L career · no lines in 2021
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.