Teams

RCC Koch

2024 Richmond Combo Weekend · Richmond Combo Weekend 6.5 Women

11 players · average NTRP 3.29 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2024-09-15vs RMC - SweeneyLost 01
L#3 DoublesAmy Boschen / Sabrina Henderson vs Catherine Sweeney / Kathy Laing5-7, 2-6
2024-09-01vs Belmont- SherdelLost 01
L#1 DoublesKimberl Hale / Amy Boschen vs Judith McGarrity / Heather Scott6-1, 6-7, 0-1
2024-08-24vs TDC Spillare ComboLost 01
L#1 DoublesChristine Albrecht / Pamela Albrecht vs Fran Wigner / Kim Spillare3-6, 6-4, 1-0
2024-08-18vs ACAC Davis Serve Slice Smash It!Won 10
W#2 DoublesPam Koch / Amy Boschen vs Mary Knick / Jennifer Booth6-1, 7-5
2024-08-10vs Avalon Wade WonderwomenLost 01
L#1 DoublesChristine Albrecht / Margaret Nuckols-Currence vs Karen Devalk / Michelle Hall3-6, 5-7
W#1 DoublesChristine Albrecht / Pamela Albrecht vs Mandy Tornabene / Emily McClenny6-4, 7-6
L#2 DoublesCris Latief / Amy Boschen vs Becky McNeer / Donna Jamison3-6, 5-7
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 Combo Weekend 6.5 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 2.91 estimated across 10 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.

3.37
Christine Albrecht
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
Cris Latief
published 3.5
3.14
Berkeley Darr
published 3.5
3.12
Cathie Ricketts
published 3.5
3.05
Kimberl Hale
published
2.97
Margaret Thompson
published
2.88
Amy Boschen
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published 3
2.88
Pam Koch
published
2.64
Amy Wozniak
published 3
2.52
Sabrina Henderson
published
2.52
Beverly Davis
published 3
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.

Christine Albrecht + Amy Boschen303 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
Christine Albrecht
122W–58L career · 3 lines in 2024
<1%82%18%
3.37
3.5
Cris Latief
2W–0L career · no lines in 2024
not enough data
3.5
Berkeley Darr
2W–2L career · no lines in 2024
16%83%<1%
3.14
3.5
Cathie Ricketts
2W–1L career · no lines in 2024
20%80%<1%
3.12
Kimberl Hale
13W–7L career · no lines in 2024
<1%37%63%
3.05
Margaret Thompson
29W–25L career · no lines in 2024
<1%60%40%
2.97
3
Amy Boschen
154W–164L career · 4 lines in 2024
<1%80%20%
2.88
Pam Koch
2W–7L career · no lines in 2024
80%20%<1%
2.88
3
Amy Wozniak
1W–4L career · no lines in 2024
16%84%1%
2.64
Sabrina Henderson
4W–21L career · no lines in 2024
>99%<1%<1%
2.52
3
Beverly Davis
4W–28L career · type A · no lines in 2024
45%55%<1%
2.52

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.