Teams

2 Woodlake Jolinski

2022 Richmond Adult 40 & Over Weekend · Richmond Adult 40 & Over 3.0 Women

13 players · average NTRP 3.12 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2022-07-24vs 9 Willow Oaks CatherinesWon 10
W#3 DoublesAllie Hannon / Irene Shepherd vs Joy Chenault / Alison Rogish6-2, 6-1
2022-07-23vs 4 Avalon KallmanWon 10
W#3 DoublesJenny Jolinski / Irene Shepherd vs Jessica Peacock / Susan Wafford6-2, 6-4
2022-07-16vs 1 ACAC Callaghan/GrangerWon 10
W#2 DoublesIrene Shepherd / Rochelle Preston vs Anne Townsend / Katy Bassler6-4, 3-6, 1-0
2022-06-18vs 3 Raintree BryanWon 10
W#2 DoublesIrene Shepherd / Suzanne Snyder vs Kim Earle / Erin Lyons6-4, 6-3
2022-06-16vs 8 Bon Air PowersWon 10
W#1 DoublesJulia Morrison / Irene Shepherd vs Gretchen Sodamann / Jennifer Moss6-1, 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 Adult 40 & Over 3.0 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 2.78 estimated across 12 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.

3.34
Irene Shepherd
usually #2 Doubles 40%, also #3 Doubles 40% · published 3.5
2.88
Adelaide Urban
published 3
2.87
Virginia Patterson
published
2.86
Rochelle Preston
published
2.85
Lim Han
published
2.82
Wendy Learn
published
2.77
Julia Morrison
published
2.75
Allie Hannon
published 3
2.65
Suzanne Snyder
published
2.60
Wanda Huggins
published
2.51
Jenny Jolinski
published
2.51
Alison Joyce
published 3
Kathleen Laroche
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.

Allie Hannon + Wendy Learn3252% games+5.1% vs expected
Jenny Jolinski + Virginia Patterson213 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
Irene Shepherd
111W–81L career · 5 lines in 2022
<1%89%11%
3.34
3
Adelaide Urban
5W–2L career · no lines in 2022
<1%82%18%
2.88
Virginia Patterson
20W–11L career · no lines in 2022
<1%85%15%
2.87
Rochelle Preston
7W–14L career · no lines in 2022
<1%86%13%
2.86
Lim Han
1W–9L career · no lines in 2022
87%13%<1%
2.85
Wendy Learn
25W–29L career · no lines in 2022
1%91%8%
2.82
Julia Morrison
2W–5L career · no lines in 2022
2%94%4%
2.77
3
Allie Hannon
28W–40L career · no lines in 2022
3%95%3%
2.75
Suzanne Snyder
3W–9L career · no lines in 2022
13%87%<1%
2.65
Wanda Huggins
6W–12L career · no lines in 2022
23%77%<1%
2.60
Jenny Jolinski
9W–21L career · no lines in 2022
46%54%<1%
2.51
3
Alison Joyce
2W–28L career · no lines in 2022
47%53%<1%
2.51
Kathleen Laroche
1W–4L 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.