Teams

TDC Spillare 3.5

2021 Richmond Adult 18 & Over Weekday Women · Richmond Weekday Adult 18 & Over Women 3.5

10 players · average NTRP 3.70 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2021-06-23vs ACAC DoblerWon 10
W#1 DoublesNicole Wyman / Rhonda Underwood vs Carole Camden / Elisebeth Gelardi6-3, 7-5
2021-06-22vs Kanawha Piepgrass / WaltonWon 10
W#1 DoublesNicole Wyman / Patricia Hogan vs Katie Gerecke / Wendy Daniel6-1, 6-3
2021-06-09vs Westwood Hause 3.5Lost 01
L#1 DoublesNicole Wyman / Rhonda Underwood vs Liza Hause / Michelle Baker3-6, 1-6
2021-05-26vs Raintree StahlingWon 10
W#1 DoublesNicole Wyman / Rhonda Underwood vs Valerie Caldwell / Lisa Penny6-1, 6-0
2021-05-21vs RCC GnappSplit 11
L#1 DoublesNicole Wyman / Nathalie Stephens vs Diana Dull / Betsy Siewers4-6, 3-6
W#3 DoublesKim Spillare / Rhonda Underwood vs Jennifer Lyn Albis / Dianne Sloane6-2, 7-5
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 Weekday Adult 18 & Over Women 3.5 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 3.32 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.

3.89
Nicole Wyman
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 4.5
3.75
3.36
Patricia Hogan
published
3.31
Rhonda Underwood
usually #1 Doubles 75%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 3.5
3.27
Jennifer McGee
published
3.26
Deborah Eldridge
published 3.5
3.23
Sharon Moorefield
published
3.18
Nathalie Stephens
published
3.05
Kim Spillare
published
2.87
Eliza Causey
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.

Rhonda Underwood + Nicole Wyman17662% gamesnot enough data
Rhonda Underwood + Sharon Moorefield3248% gamesnot enough data
Deborah Eldridge + Rhonda Underwood123 matchesnot enough data
Deborah Eldridge + Sharon Moorefield213 matchesnot enough data
Kim Spillare + Sharon Moorefield123 matchesnot enough data
Kim Spillare + Nathalie Stephens123 matchesnot enough data
Sharon Moorefield + Jennifer McGee123 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.

4.5
Nicole Wyman
134W–86L career · 5 lines in 2021
81%19%<1%
3.89
4
Elizabeth Walkley
9W–5L career · no lines in 2021
3%95%3%
3.75
Patricia Hogan
9W–7L career · no lines in 2021
<1%85%14%
3.36
3.5
Rhonda Underwood
96W–89L career · 4 lines in 2021
1%92%7%
3.31
Jennifer McGee
8W–6L career · no lines in 2021
2%94%4%
3.27
3.5
Deborah Eldridge
16W–19L career · no lines in 2021
2%94%3%
3.26
Sharon Moorefield
20W–19L career · no lines in 2021
4%94%2%
3.23
Nathalie Stephens
9W–9L career · no lines in 2021
8%91%1%
3.18
Kim Spillare
18W–16L career · no lines in 2021
35%65%<1%
3.05
3
Eliza Causey
22W–13L career · no lines in 2021
<1%84%15%
2.87

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.