Teams

WOCC Stringer/Thomas

2021 Richmond Adult 18 & Over Weekday Women · Richmond Weekday Adult 18 & Over Women 3.0

13 players · average NTRP 3.36 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2021-06-21vs TDC McCormickSplit 11
W#2 DoublesDarlene Moehling / Stacy Curtis vs Debbie Schriner / Cynthia Mistretta7-5, 6-4
L#2 SinglesRebecca Hendrix vs Elaine McCormick3-6, 4-6
2021-06-17vs HCC WestSplit 11
L#1 SinglesRebecca Hendrix vs Thu-Hang Groome4-6, 6-7
W#2 SinglesDarlene Moehling vs Monica Walsh6-0, 6-4
2021-06-10vs Wooklake JolinskiWon 10
W#2 SinglesRebecca Hendrix vs Wendy Learn6-2, 6-2
2021-06-03Lost 01
L#1 SinglesDarlene Moehling vs Jennifer Carroll4-6, 6-2, 0-1
2021-05-27vs Salisbury Haskin / DuncanWon 10
W#2 SinglesDarlene Moehling vs Sally Hurt6-2, 6-2
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 3.0 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 3.15 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.

3.88
Darlene Moehling
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #1 Singles 25% · published 4
3.69
Rebecca Hendrix
usually #2 Singles 67%, also #1 Singles 33% · published
3.38
Heather Drew
published 3.5
3.37
Cheri Stringer
published 3.5
3.37
Laura Vetter
published
Erin Strunk
published 3.5
3.04
Sule Sauvigne
published
2.82
Stacy Curtis
published
2.66
Beth Kelly
published 3
2.65
Dorianne Torrice
published 3
2.63
Nan McKenney
published
Nikki Powell
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.

Laura Vetter + Heather Drew2356% games+0.1% vs expected
Dorianne Torrice + Beth Kelly123 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
Darlene Moehling
113W–77L career · 4 lines in 2021
<1%81%19%
3.88
Rebecca Hendrix
49W–21L career · 3 lines in 2021
7%92%1%
3.69
3.5
Heather Drew
13W–11L career · no lines in 2021
<1%83%17%
3.38
3.5
Cheri Stringer
9W–6L career · no lines in 2021
<1%84%16%
3.37
Laura Vetter
20W–10L career · no lines in 2021
<1%84%16%
3.37
3.5
Erin Strunk
1W–0L career · no lines in 2021
not enough data
Sule Sauvigne
10W–14L career · no lines in 2021
38%62%<1%
3.04
Stacy Curtis
3W–4L career · no lines in 2021
1%91%9%
2.82
3
Beth Kelly
4W–9L career · no lines in 2021
11%88%<1%
2.66
3
Dorianne Torrice
8W–7L career · no lines in 2021
12%88%<1%
2.65
3
Colette Christianson
4W–3L career · no lines in 2021
15%84%<1%
2.63
Nan McKenney
5W–4L career · no lines in 2021
not enough data
Nikki Powell
5W–5L career · no lines in 2021
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.