Teams

MTC-6.0 Jolinski

2026 Richmond Adult 65 & Over Weekday Women · Richmond Adult 65 & Over Weekday 6.0 Women

11 players · average NTRP 2.83 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule8 played
2026-06-01vs Westwood WilliamsLost 03
L#1 DoublesLudi Webber / Betty Thompson vs Margaret Kohler / Janet Livick2-6, 4-6
L#2 DoublesJenny Jolinski / Ann Burks vs Betsy Holloway / Lynda Smith1-6, 0-6
L#3 DoublesKatherine Benedict / Susan Wyler Clark vs Dianne Dementi / Jean Watkins3-6, 1-6
2026-05-29vs ACAC MichaelsonWon 20
W#1 DoublesLudi Webber / Virginia Patterson vs Beverly Anderson / Kathy Margopoulos6-1, 6-0
W#2 DoublesKatherine Benedict / Betty Thompson vs Mary O'Brien / Brenda Rogers1-6, 6-3, 1-0
2026-05-18vs ACAC PARRISHLost 03
L#1 DoublesSuzanne Johnson / Wanda Huggins vs Daphne Cole / Judy Forbes6-2, 5-5
L#2 DoublesCharlotte Rhodes / Betty Thompson vs Patti Bryan / Jackie Granger2-6, 1-6
L#3 DoublesPeggy Healy / Linda Wadkins vs Constance Brecht / Jill Bolinger2-6, 4-6
2026-05-04vs ACAC MichaelsonWon 21
W#1 DoublesLudi Webber / Virginia Patterson vs Brenda DeBartolo / Beverly Davis4-6, 6-1, 1-0
W#2 DoublesJenny Jolinski / Betty Thompson vs Laura Bucheit / Marion O'Donnell6-2, 6-3
L#3 DoublesCharlotte Rhodes / Ann Burks vs Beverly Anderson / Mary O'Brien6-2, 4-6, 0-1
2026-04-27vs Willow Oaks - McKenneyLost 03
L#1 DoublesSuzanne Johnson / Betty Thompson vs Joyce Dustin / Karen Solana4-6, 3-6
L#2 DoublesKatherine Benedict / Susan Wyler Clark vs Beth Kelly / Meda Lane2-6, 0-6
L#3 DoublesCharlotte Rhodes / Linda Wadkins vs Peggy Thompson / Dorianne Torrice4-6, 2-6
2026-04-20vs Westwood WilliamsLost 03
L#1 DoublesVirginia Patterson / Jenny Jolinski vs Margaret Kohler / Janet Livick4-6, 2-6
L#2 DoublesLudi Webber / Wanda Huggins vs Lynda Smith / Claudia Williams5-7, 5-7
L#3 DoublesPeggy Healy / Ann Burks vs Sheila Roberts / Betsy Holloway2-6, 2-6
2026-04-13vs ACAC PARRISHLost 12
L#1 DoublesSuzanne Johnson / Betty Thompson vs Donna Barrett / Patti Bryan4-6, 1-6
W#2 DoublesJenny Jolinski / Virginia Patterson vs Jane Parrish / Alicia Barnett6-4, 6-3
L#3 DoublesSusan Wyler Clark / Katherine Benedict vs Jill Bolinger / Jackie Granger4-6, 1-6
2026-04-06vs Burkwood - AbernathyLost 03
L#1 DoublesVirginia Patterson / Suzanne Johnson vs Ann Abernathy / DAYNA SCHOOLS6-3, 3-6, 0-1
L#2 DoublesBetty Thompson / Ludi Webber vs Susan Dixon / Nancy Harrison3-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesLinda Wadkins / Peggy Healy vs Mary Allen / Paula Little2-6, 1-6
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 standings6 teams · Richmond Adult 65 & Over Weekday 6.0 Women
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1Burkwood - Abernathy7120411149
2Westwood Williams6218614172
3Willow Oaks - McKenney5315921178
4ACAC PARRISH44121226198
5MTC-6.0 Jolinski2661838240
6ACAC Michaelson0812347281

Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.

See the full flight, with every team’s record

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 2.48 estimated across 7 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.

2.87
Virginia Patterson
usually #1 Doubles 80%, also #2 Doubles 20% · published
2.61
Wanda Huggins
usually #2 Doubles 33%, also #3 Doubles 33% · published
2.54
Charlotte Rhodes
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3
2.52
Jenny Jolinski
usually #2 Doubles 75%, also #1 Doubles 25% · published
2.50
Betty Thompson
usually #2 Doubles 57%, also #1 Doubles 43% · published 3
2.33
Katherine Benedict
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
2.00
Ann Burks
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 2.5
Linda Wadkins
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Ludi Webber
usually #1 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published
Peggy Healy
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Susan Wyler Clark
usually #3 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · 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.

Jenny Jolinski + Virginia Patterson213 matchesnot enough data
Katherine Benedict + Susan Wyler Clark033 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.

Virginia Patterson
20W–11L career · 5 lines in 2026
<1%82%18%
2.87
Wanda Huggins
6W–12L career · 3 lines in 2026
21%78%<1%
2.61
3
Charlotte Rhodes
1W–6L career · 3 lines in 2026
39%61%<1%
2.54
Jenny Jolinski
9W–21L career · 4 lines in 2026
44%56%<1%
2.52
3
Betty Thompson
2W–5L career · 7 lines in 2026
51%49%<1%
2.50
Katherine Benedict
3W–16L career · 4 lines in 2026
89%11%<1%
2.33
2.5
Ann Burks
0W–3L career · 3 lines in 2026
0%>99%<1%
2.00
Linda Wadkins
0W–7L career · 3 lines in 2026
not enough data
Ludi Webber
2W–3L career · 5 lines in 2026
not enough data
Peggy Healy
0W–3L career · 3 lines in 2026
not enough data
Susan Wyler Clark
0W–3L career · 3 lines in 2026
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.