Teams

CCV Avery

2023 Richmond Adult 18 & Over Weekday Women · Richmond Adult 18 & Over 4.0 Women

12 players · average NTRP 4.00 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2023-06-16Lost 01
L#1 SinglesMelissa Mauck vs Catherine Wood4-6, 0-6
2023-06-13vs WOCC StallsLost 01
L#1 SinglesMelissa Mauck vs Brooke Kelly2-6, 0-6
2023-06-08vs Woodlake RitterSplit 11
L#1 SinglesMelissa Mauck vs Dana Fath1-6, 1-6
W#3 DoublesPam Sweeney / Teresa Whitworth vs Theresa Peplinski / Karen Brady6-4, 7-6
2023-06-01vs CCV DeLaceyWon 20
W#2 DoublesElizabeth Martin / Suzanne Morris vs Mary Bartzen / Stephanie Parker6-3, 6-4
W#3 DoublesAlison Avery / Teresa Whitworth vs Sharon Loving / Tara Bennett7-5, 6-4
2023-05-22vs KRA Hauk / EdensWon 20
W#1 DoublesCourtney Harper / Suzanne Morris vs Lauren Hauk / Denise Terrell2-6, 6-2, 1-0
W#2 SinglesMelissa Mauck vs Sarah Dickinson6-2, 6-2
2023-05-15vs HCC FisherWon 10
W#3 DoublesPam Sweeney / Suzanne Morris vs Judi Baker / Lynn Holly6-3, 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 18 & Over 4.0 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 3.61 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.

3.96
Nancy Young
published
3.76
Courtney Harper
published 4
Brenda Baril
published 4
3.75
Karen Williamson
published
Teresa Whitworth
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.65
Alison Avery
published 4
3.63
Pam Sweeney
published
3.60
Hyde Loupassi
published
3.50
Suzanne Morris
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published
3.36
Melissa Mauck
usually #1 Singles 75%, also #2 Singles 25% · published
3.31
Nancy Taylor
published
Susan Trigg
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.

Courtney Harper + Karen Williamson213 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.

Nancy Young
2W–6L career · no lines in 2023
<1%61%39%
3.96
4
Courtney Harper
8W–3L career · no lines in 2023
3%93%4%
3.76
4
Brenda Baril
1W–1L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Karen Williamson
6W–7L career · no lines in 2023
4%93%4%
3.75
4
Teresa Whitworth
26W–39L career · 2 lines in 2023
not enough data
4
Alison Avery
16W–11L career · no lines in 2023
14%85%1%
3.65
Pam Sweeney
1W–4L career · no lines in 2023
19%81%<1%
3.63
Hyde Loupassi
1W–3L career · no lines in 2023
24%76%<1%
3.60
Suzanne Morris
27W–8L career · 3 lines in 2023
49%51%<1%
3.50
Melissa Mauck
68W–75L career · 4 lines in 2023
1%84%16%
3.36
Nancy Taylor
0W–4L career · no lines in 2023
91%9%<1%
3.31
Susan Trigg
3W–1L 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.