Teams

Belmont Colgin

2022 Richmond Adult 55 & Over Weeknight Women · Richmond Adult 55 & Over 8.0 Women

14 players · average NTRP 3.75 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule8 played
2022-08-08vs CCV BencksLost 03
L#1 DoublesJane Colgin / Paige Oostdyk vs Susan Trigg / Jennifer Bencks4-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesKim Michael / Susan Greenspoon vs Melissa Mauck / Margaret Mickel2-6, 4-6
L#3 DoublesTherese Jones / Cathie Tiernan vs Beth Paul / Mary Bartzen4-6, 3-6
2022-08-04Split 11
L#1 DoublesVictoria Bradt / Patricia Riester vs Xianghong Li / Denise Moore5-7, 3-6
W#3 DoublesLee Moore / Therese Jones vs N/A6-0, 6-0
2022-08-03vs Burkwood KampingaWon 21
W#1 DoublesJane Taft / Dana Wilson vs Mary Ann Cox / Mary Davis7-5, 1-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesMelissa Stewart / Cathie Tiernan vs Robin Booth / Nancy Row6-4, 6-2
L#3 DoublesTherese Jones / Paige Oostdyk vs Lisa Adkins / Anne Murray2-6, 2-6
2022-07-28vs CCV BencksWon 21
W#1 DoublesPatricia Riester / Melissa Stewart vs Jennifer Bencks / Susan Trigg7-5, 6-4
W#2 DoublesVictoria Bradt / Paige Oostdyk vs Mary Bartzen / Paige Forrest6-4, 6-3
L#3 DoublesJane Colgin / Susan Greenspoon vs Marion Halladay / Melissa Mauck4-6, 6-7
2022-07-20vs ACAC StallardWon 21
W#1 DoublesJane Colgin / Dana Wilson vs Judiann Drash / Kimberly Giancaspro6-3, 6-3
W#2 DoublesLee Moore / Jane Riddle vs Catherine Estes / Liesl Delisio6-2, 6-4
L#3 DoublesVictoria Bradt / Donna Talamo vs Ella Johnson / Robin Petrine1-6, 1-6
2022-07-12vs MTC DowningWon 21
W#1 DoublesJane Taft / Dana Wilson vs Jeannie Langnau / Maureen McGrath6-3, 6-3
W#2 DoublesJane Riddle / Cathie Tiernan vs Joy Lareau / Thayer Baird3-6, 6-3, 1-0
L#3 DoublesKim Michael / Patricia Riester vs Sandra Farrow / Diana Duddy7-5, 4-6, 0-1
2022-07-01vs Raintree FallinLost 02
L#1 DoublesJane Taft / Patricia Riester vs Tarja Kostin / Donna Moody5-7, 7-6, 1-0
L#3 DoublesKim Michael / Jane Riddle vs Teresa Lancaster / Denise Moore2-6, 4-6
2022-06-28vs Hermitage WalshWon 21
L#1 DoublesVictoria Bradt / Jane Taft vs Pam Walsh / Susan Vonderlehr Nolan0-6, 3-6
W#2 DoublesSusan Greenspoon / Jane Riddle vs Kathy Ames / Sherri Phillips6-4, 7-6
W#3 DoublesJane Colgin / Therese Jones vs Susan Valiquett / Michele Smith6-3, 1-6, 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 Adult 55 & Over 8.0 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 3.46 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.

3.75
Dana Wilson
published 4
3.74
Jane Taft
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.68
Cathie Tiernan
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.59
Lee Moore
published
3.55
Patricia Riester
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 4
3.53
Paige Oostdyk
usually #2 Doubles 33%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.45
Susan Greenspoon
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
3.35
Jane Riddle
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.31
Jane Colgin
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.31
Victoria Bradt
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.29
Therese Jones
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.24
Kim Michael
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.13
Donna Talamo
published 3.5
Melissa Stewart
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.

Therese Jones + Kim Michael31342% games−5.3% vs expected
Victoria Bradt + Paige Oostdyk91048% gamesnot enough data
Jane Colgin + Jane Taft8753% gamesnot enough data
Victoria Bradt + Kim Michael6455% gamesnot enough data
Patricia Riester + Victoria Bradt2550% gamesnot enough data
Patricia Riester + Paige Oostdyk2438% gamesnot enough data
Therese Jones + Paige Oostdyk3349% gamesnot enough data
Jane Riddle + Victoria Bradt2355% 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
Dana Wilson
8W–5L career · no lines in 2022
3%95%3%
3.75
4
Jane Taft
106W–67L career · 4 lines in 2022
3%95%2%
3.74
4
Cathie Tiernan
40W–50L career · 3 lines in 2022
8%91%1%
3.68
Lee Moore
18W–16L career · no lines in 2022
24%76%<1%
3.59
4
Patricia Riester
43W–47L career · 4 lines in 2022
35%65%<1%
3.55
4
Paige Oostdyk
62W–53L career · 3 lines in 2022
41%59%<1%
3.53
Susan Greenspoon
178W–113L career · 3 lines in 2022
<1%65%35%
3.45
3.5
Jane Riddle
106W–67L career · 4 lines in 2022
<1%88%12%
3.35
3.5
Jane Colgin
160W–148L career · 4 lines in 2022
1%92%8%
3.31
3.5
Victoria Bradt
150W–168L career · 4 lines in 2022
1%92%7%
3.31
Therese Jones
88W–122L career · 4 lines in 2022
1%93%5%
3.29
3.5
Kim Michael
126W–136L career · 3 lines in 2022
3%94%2%
3.24
3.5
Donna Talamo
5W–5L career · no lines in 2022
15%84%<1%
3.13
Melissa Stewart
1W–1L 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.