Teams

BHSC

2023 Charlottesville Adult 40 & Over · Charlottesville Adult 40 & Over 4.0 Women

10 players · average NTRP 3.88 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2023-08-17vs Forest Lakes - WannabesWon 10
W#2 DoublesLesley Hock / Allison Evanow vs Susan Bayliss / Beth Hollen6-3, 6-4
2023-07-11vs Forest Lakes - WannabesWon 10
W#2 DoublesBeth McCarthy / Sue Frazier vs Janie Shrader / Bridget Atwell4-6, 7-5, 1-0
2023-06-30vs ACACLost 02
L#1 SinglesMary Voelmle vs Catherine DeSouza5-7, 1-6
L#2 DoublesKatherine Morris / Lesley Hock vs Kristin Carter / Stacy Moren3-6, 3-6
2023-06-22vs ACACLost 02
L#2 DoublesKatherine Morris / Mary Voelmle vs Dulcy Giuliano / Katherine Haskins6-3, 3-6, 0-1
L#3 DoublesBeth McCarthy / Sue Frazier vs Lauren Reichman / Kristin Carter2-6, 6-7
2023-06-13vs Forest Lakes - WannabesWon 20
W#1 DoublesLesley Hock / Beth McCarthy vs Mary Beth Cancienne / Jenny Furlow6-1, 1-6, 1-0
W#3 DoublesKatherine Morris / Mary Voelmle vs Bridget Atwell / Kelly Bauman6-2, 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 Charlottesville Adult 40 & 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 3.49 estimated across 7 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.

Allison Evanow
published 4
3.68
Janette Murphy
published
3.64
Mary Voelmle
usually #3 Doubles 33%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.59
3.57
Lesley Hock
usually #2 Doubles 67%, also #1 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.37
Kate Stephenson
published
3.35
Katherine Morris
published
3.26
Sue Frazier
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
Elizabeth Ratcliffe
published
Myriam Escanellas
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.

Farrell Vangelopoulos + Kate Stephenson134 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.

4
Allison Evanow
1W–1L career · type A · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Janette Murphy
2W–1L career · no lines in 2023
10%89%1%
3.68
4
Mary Voelmle
147W–99L career · 3 lines in 2023
16%83%<1%
3.64
Farrell Vangelopoulos
10W–9L career · no lines in 2023
26%74%<1%
3.59
4
Lesley Hock
43W–49L career · 3 lines in 2023
32%68%<1%
3.57
Kate Stephenson
2W–6L career · no lines in 2023
83%17%<1%
3.37
Katherine Morris
4W–8L career · no lines in 2023
86%14%<1%
3.35
3.5
Sue Frazier
35W–41L career · 2 lines in 2023
3%93%4%
3.26
Elizabeth Ratcliffe
0W–1L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Myriam Escanellas
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.