Teams

SCC Coon Combo

2024 Richmond Combo Weekday · Richmond Combo Weekday 7.5 Women

11 players · average NTRP 3.70 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2024-11-22vs MTC MeyerWon 10
W#1 DoublesMichelle Nelson / Julie Kearfott vs Robin Meyer / Lindsey Scammell6-2, 6-2
2024-11-20vs ACAC BradtLost 01
L#2 DoublesJulie Nobles / Julie Kearfott vs Catherine Estes / Carol Hoefer4-6, 3-6
2024-11-18vs WW Double Trouble - RacelisWon 10
W#1 DoublesMichelle Nelson / Julie Kearfott vs Meredith Schwartz / Elizabeth Boutry7-5, 6-3
2024-11-13vs Woodlake GlenWon 10
W#2 DoublesLaney Hyatt / Julie Kearfott vs Karen Brady / Kara Key3-6, 6-3, 1-0
2024-10-25vs Burkwood MatthewsLost 01
L#3 DoublesJulie Kearfott / Parker Coon vs Jennifer Owens / Lynn Reeves6-1, 3-6, 0-1
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 Richmond Combo Weekday 7.5 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 3.50 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.

3.96
Tamara Beck Jacquet
published 4.5
3.88
Laney Hyatt
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
3.74
Michelle Nelson
published
3.61
Kendall Consolvo
published
3.45
Catherine Baldridge
published 3.5
3.44
Marianne Lane
published
3.40
Becky McNeer
published 3.5
3.34
Julie Kearfott
usually #2 Doubles 57%, also #1 Doubles 29% · published 3.5
3.30
Colleen Weisiger
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #1 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.27
Parker Coon
published
3.13
Julie Nobles
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.

Kendall Consolvo + Parker Coon0533% gamesnot enough data
Becky McNeer + Julie Nobles224 matchesnot enough data
Becky McNeer + Catherine Baldridge123 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
Tamara Beck Jacquet
59W–106L career · no lines in 2024
61%39%<1%
3.96
Laney Hyatt
20W–10L career · 2 lines in 2024
<1%81%19%
3.88
Michelle Nelson
11W–22L career · no lines in 2024
4%92%3%
3.74
Kendall Consolvo
2W–9L career · no lines in 2024
22%78%<1%
3.61
3.5
Catherine Baldridge
15W–8L career · no lines in 2024
<1%65%35%
3.45
Marianne Lane
16W–7L career · no lines in 2024
<1%66%34%
3.44
3.5
Becky McNeer
29W–19L career · no lines in 2024
<1%77%23%
3.40
3.5
Julie Kearfott
146W–104L career · 7 lines in 2024
1%87%12%
3.34
3.5
Colleen Weisiger
18W–7L career · 2 lines in 2024
2%91%8%
3.30
Parker Coon
2W–8L career · no lines in 2024
95%5%<1%
3.27
Julie Nobles
13W–20L career · no lines in 2024
19%81%<1%
3.13

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.