Teams

Hermitage Yablonski

2022 Richmond Adult 40 & Over Weekday · Richmond Adult 40 & Over 3.5 Women

14 players · average NTRP 3.42 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2022-07-22vs Twin Hickory SubramanainWon 10
W#1 DoublesAMY LINES / Stephanie Yablonski vs Corinne Skevington / Jennifer Schwarz7-6, 6-3
2022-07-08vs Raintree EvansWon 10
W#1 DoublesStephanie Yablonski / AMY LINES vs Donna Moody / Jennifer Morris6-3, 6-3
2022-07-06vs ACAC GueretteWon 10
W#2 DoublesStephanie Yablonski / AMY LINES vs Tracey Watson / Julie Rison7-6, 6-3
2022-07-01vs TDC SpillareWon 10
W#1 DoublesStephanie Yablonski / AMY LINES vs Jennifer McGee / Denise Shafer6-2, 6-2
2022-06-24vs Three Chopt DeValkWon 10
W#1 DoublesAMY LINES / Sharon Mugford vs Beth Jones / Jennifer Dortch6-7, 6-1, 1-0
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 40 & Over 3.5 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 3.20 estimated across 9 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.

3.97
AMY LINES
usually #1 Doubles 78%, also #2 Doubles 22% · published 4
Betsy Kersey
published 4
3.38
Stephanie Yablonski
usually #1 Doubles 71%, also #2 Doubles 14% · published 3.5
3.29
Sarah Martin
published
3.28
Susan Poulos
published
3.22
Kathy Harcum
published
3.07
Sharon Mugford
published
3.04
Kimberly Ross
published
2.92
Alice Brown
published 3
2.63
Debra Suyama
published 3
Pamela Mumper
published
Sandy Lucas
published
Susan Mangin
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.

Stephanie Yablonski + AMY LINES18170% games+20.2% vs expected
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
AMY LINES
220W–87L career · 9 lines in 2022
<1%58%42%
3.97
4
Betsy Kersey
1W–0L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
3.5
Stephanie Yablonski
124W–88L career · 7 lines in 2022
<1%82%17%
3.38
Sarah Martin
15W–8L career · no lines in 2022
1%94%5%
3.29
Susan Poulos
7W–3L career · no lines in 2022
2%94%4%
3.28
Kathy Harcum
8W–13L career · no lines in 2022
4%94%2%
3.22
Sharon Mugford
6W–11L career · no lines in 2022
30%70%<1%
3.07
Kimberly Ross
11W–5L career · no lines in 2022
37%63%<1%
3.04
3
Elizabeth Wiertel
29W–21L career · no lines in 2022
<1%72%28%
2.92
3
Alice Brown
0W–1L career · type S · no lines in 2022
not enough data
3
Debra Suyama
1W–4L career · no lines in 2022
16%84%<1%
2.63
Pamela Mumper
0W–4L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Sandy Lucas
6W–3L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Susan Mangin
2W–0L career · no lines in 2022
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.