Teams

MAC Maniacs Bates

2021 Richmond Tri-Level Weeknight · Weeknight Wed

14 players · average NTRP 3.00 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2021-10-20vs ACAC WeddleLost 01
L#1 DoublesMichelle Jepson / Bernice White vs Ashlyn DesMarteau / Michelle Nelson6-2, 0-6, 0-1
2021-10-13Won 10
W#1 DoublesMichelle Jepson / Deirdre Vaughan vs Nesta Byron / Molly Gorman6-0, 6-2
2021-09-29vs HCC WalshLost 01
L#1 DoublesBernice White / Michelle Jepson vs Tissa Nasta / Lynne Butz5-7, 7-6, 1-0
2021-09-08vs TDC SpillareWon 10
W#1 DoublesMichelle Jepson / Sabrina Graff vs Rhonda Underwood / Jennifer McGee6-4, 7-6
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 standings for Weeknight Wed 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 2.85 estimated across 14 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.

3.32
Mary Church
usually #3 Doubles 60%, also #2 Doubles 40% · published
3.29
Mary Scott
published
3.28
Michelle Jepson
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.28
Deirdre Vaughan
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
2.96
Cheri McLeod
published 3.5
2.95
Bernice White
published 3
2.92
Susan Staton
usually #3 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published
2.85
Anne Wolff
published 3
2.77
Chitra Chavan
published 3
2.77
2.65
Susanna Dodd
published
2.63
Ruth Bates
published
2.13
Diana Plasberg
published 2.5
2.12
Deepa Kalkunte
published 2.5
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.

Mary Church + Michelle Jepson6160% games+6.2% vs expected
Susan Staton + Anne Wolff3450% games+0.3% vs expected
Deirdre Vaughan + Michelle Jepson7652% games−3.9% vs expected
Susan Staton + Mary Church6849% gamesnot enough data
Susan Staton + Michelle Jepson213 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.

Mary Church
176W–130L career · 5 lines in 2021
1%91%8%
3.32
Mary Scott
18W–12L career · no lines in 2021
94%6%<1%
3.29
Michelle Jepson
130W–103L career · 4 lines in 2021
2%94%4%
3.28
3.5
Deirdre Vaughan
162W–178L career · 10 lines in 2021
2%94%4%
3.28
3.5
Cheri McLeod
4W–7L career · type S · no lines in 2021
63%37%<1%
2.96
3
Bernice White
8W–20L career · no lines in 2021
<1%64%36%
2.95
Susan Staton
132W–142L career · 8 lines in 2021
<1%73%27%
2.92
3
Anne Wolff
23W–33L career · no lines in 2021
<1%88%12%
2.85
3
Chitra Chavan
6W–8L career · no lines in 2021
2%94%4%
2.77
3
Clarissa McDonough
10W–6L career · no lines in 2021
2%94%4%
2.77
Susanna Dodd
6W–8L career · no lines in 2021
13%87%<1%
2.65
Ruth Bates
7W–21L career · no lines in 2021
15%84%<1%
2.63
2.5
Diana Plasberg
1W–9L career · no lines in 2021
0%>99%<1%
2.13
2.5
Deepa Kalkunte
5W–17L career · no lines in 2021
0%>99%<1%
2.12

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.