Powers MACnificents
2026 Richmond Doubles Weeknight Women · Richmond Doubles Weeknight Women 6.0
11 players · average NTRP 3.00 / VIRGINIA
Schedule8 played
i
Flight standings20 teams · Richmond Doubles Weeknight Women 6.0
| Team | W | L | Sets lost | Games lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1Stonehenge Danowski | 8 | 0 | 14 | 168 |
| 2KRA Weeknight Doubles - Ware | 8 | 0 | 17 | 175 |
| 3Westwood Caudill | 7 | 1 | 11 | 159 |
| 4CCV Loflin | 6 | 2 | 14 | 145 |
| 5Hermitage- Hutcheson/ Thompson | 6 | 2 | 20 | 192 |
| 6ACAC Ladies Night - Curtis | 6 | 2 | 21 | 173 |
| 7Burkwood~Brock | 6 | 2 | 25 | 212 |
| 8Raintree Cheeky Chicks | 5 | 3 | 22 | 205 |
| 9Woodlake Brawley | 5 | 3 | 23 | 184 |
| 10Bon Air Woodroof Wonders | 4 | 4 | 32 | 220 |
| 11Westwood Rally Cats - Layman | 3 | 5 | 21 | 179 |
| 12MAC Gault | 3 | 5 | 30 | 215 |
| 13Ridgetop Pugh 6.0 | 3 | 5 | 34 | 242 |
| 14The Court Collective - MTC Chenevert | 3 | 5 | 35 | 244 |
| 15Powers MACnificents | 2 | 6 | 31 | 222 |
| 16Chestnut Oaks 6.0 - Coyle | 1 | 7 | 36 | 244 |
| 17Acac Preusser Pair Pressure | 1 | 7 | 37 | 230 |
| 18Brown's Bon Air Bombshells | 1 | 7 | 37 | 246 |
| 19Three Chopt Priddy | 1 | 7 | 39 | 248 |
| 20KC Sunshine - Thumma | 1 | 7 | 40 | 256 |
Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.
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 2.76 estimated across 11 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.
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 Wolff | 5–6 | 49% games | +6.0% vs expected |
| Susan Staton + Heather Scott | 4–1 | 51% games | +4.4% vs expected |
| Lynette Villadelgado + Kristen Powers | 12–4 | 62% games | +4.1% vs expected |
| Susan Staton + Anne Wolff | 3–4 | 50% games | +0.1% vs expected |
| Susan Staton + Kristen Powers | 2–4 | 41% games | not enough data |
| Stacy Sherdel + Heather Scott | 1–3 | 4 matches | not enough data |
| Ruth Bates + Kellie Samson | 1–2 | 3 matches | not enough data |
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.
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.