Teams

9 Belmont Breakers Bates

2023 Richmond Adult 40 & Over Weekend · Richmond Adult 40 & Over 3.0 Women

17 players · average NTRP 2.88 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2023-07-08vs 1 Westwood Fitts/StanleyWon 10
W#1 DoublesAnne Wolff / Mary Church vs Jenny Sharrar / Sarah Thomas2-6, 6-1, 1-0
2023-07-01vs 10 Bon Air Powers PlayWon 10
W#1 DoublesAnne Walker / Mary Church vs Lynette Villadelgado / Donna Lawson7-6, 6-3
2023-05-21vs 3 Salisbury JamLost 01
L#1 DoublesAnne Wolff / Mary Church vs Colleen Weisiger / Donna Jamison3-6, 7-5, 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 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 2.74 estimated across 16 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.

3.32
Rashelle Hayes
published
3.27
Mary Church
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
2.87
Anne Wolff
published 3
2.83
Karin Sheets
published
2.79
Heather Scott
published
2.78
Linda Benson
published
2.77
Sue Mathe
published
2.77
2.72
Stacy Sherdel
published
2.69
Tina Carter
published
2.68
Anne Walker
published 3
2.66
Susanna Dodd
published
2.65
Shivani Jain
published
2.65
Ruth Bates
published
2.26
Nancy Broaddus
published
2.12
Diana Plasberg
published 2.5
Sherry Elliott
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.

Heather Scott + Anne Wolff5649% games+6.0% vs expected
Stacy Sherdel + Heather Scott134 matchesnot enough data
Linda Benson + Heather Scott213 matchesnot enough data
Heather Scott + Karin Sheets123 matchesnot enough data
Anne Walker + Anne Wolff123 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.

Rashelle Hayes
13W–9L career · no lines in 2023
1%89%10%
3.32
Mary Church
175W–128L career · 3 lines in 2023
3%92%5%
3.27
3
Anne Wolff
23W–30L career · no lines in 2023
<1%82%17%
2.87
Karin Sheets
13W–16L career · no lines in 2023
1%88%11%
2.83
Heather Scott
24W–37L career · no lines in 2023
2%92%6%
2.79
Linda Benson
7W–13L career · no lines in 2023
94%6%<1%
2.78
Sue Mathe
2W–5L career · no lines in 2023
3%92%5%
2.77
3
Clarissa McDonough
10W–6L career · no lines in 2023
3%92%5%
2.77
Stacy Sherdel
16W–43L career · no lines in 2023
6%92%2%
2.72
Tina Carter
15W–17L career · no lines in 2023
8%90%1%
2.69
3
Anne Walker
7W–9L career · no lines in 2023
10%89%1%
2.68
Susanna Dodd
6W–8L career · no lines in 2023
13%87%1%
2.66
Shivani Jain
4W–18L career · no lines in 2023
15%85%1%
2.65
Ruth Bates
7W–21L career · no lines in 2023
15%85%1%
2.65
Nancy Broaddus
6W–22L career · no lines in 2023
95%5%<1%
2.26
2.5
Diana Plasberg
1W–9L career · no lines in 2023
0%>99%<1%
2.12
Sherry Elliott
0W–2L 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.