Teams

CCV-DeLacey

2024 Richmond Adult 18 & Over Weekday Women · Richmond Adult 18 & Over 4.0 Women

9 players · average NTRP 4.00 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule7 played
2024-06-11vs Hermitage-Orski /LinesWon 20
W#1 SinglesKerry DeLacey vs Liz Charles6-3, 6-2
W#2 DoublesKathy Bor / Lorraine Hackney vs Abbey Orski / AMY LINES7-5, 2-6, 1-0
2024-06-06vs MTC-MeyerWon 20
W#2 DoublesKathy Bor / Lorraine Hackney vs Tia Thomas / Yancey Haas6-1, 6-3
W#2 SinglesKerry DeLacey vs Kathleen Laroche6-1, 6-2
2024-06-04vs Burkwood-RowLost 01
L#2 DoublesKerry DeLacey / Lorraine Hackney vs Melissa Stewart / Julie Hawthorne1-6, 6-3, 0-1
2024-05-30vs SCC- CapozelloLost 01
L#2 DoublesLaurel Wise / Kerry DeLacey vs Mary Snead / Michelle Nelson4-6, 6-4, 0-1
2024-05-28vs Willow Oaks-StallsLost 01
L#2 DoublesKerry DeLacey / Laurel Wise vs Gena Burr / Anne Elles4-6, 7-5, 0-1
2024-05-23vs Woodlake-RitterLost 01
L#1 DoublesLorraine Hackney / Caroline Harding vs Ana Adkins / Dana Fath6-7, 6-7
2024-05-21vs Avalon-Voeks/PearsallWon 20
W#1 DoublesLorraine Hackney / Caroline Harding vs Nancy Mihalko / Michele Smith6-7, 6-2, 1-0
W#2 SinglesKerry DeLacey vs Haidee Cline6-0, 6-4
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 3.73 estimated across 8 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.

4.01
Megan Hodges
published
3.84
Kerry DeLacey
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #2 Singles 33% · published 4
3.80
Lorraine Hackney
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published
3.76
Courtney Harper
published 4
3.75
Karen Williamson
published
3.67
Laurel Wise
published
3.59
Mary Bartzen
published
3.41
Laura West Hatcher
published
Lauren Hepper
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.

Megan Hodges
19W–5L career · no lines in 2024
<1%48%52%
4.01
4
Kerry DeLacey
142W–100L career · 6 lines in 2024
1%87%12%
3.84
Lorraine Hackney
9W–17L career · 5 lines in 2024
2%91%8%
3.80
4
Courtney Harper
8W–3L career · no lines in 2024
3%93%4%
3.76
Karen Williamson
6W–7L career · no lines in 2024
4%93%4%
3.75
Laurel Wise
3W–3L career · no lines in 2024
11%88%1%
3.67
Mary Bartzen
1W–10L career · no lines in 2024
27%73%<1%
3.59
Laura West Hatcher
3W–2L career · no lines in 2024
<1%75%25%
3.41
Lauren Hepper
0W–2L career · no lines in 2024
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.