Teams

1 Raintree Stahling 40

2025 Richmond Adult 40 & Over Weekday Women · Richmond Adult 40 & Over Weekday 3.5 Women

11 players · average NTRP 3.50 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2025-07-25vs 10 Burkwood LeeLost 01
L#1 DoublesMegan Lloyd / Carolyn Moncure vs Ellen Bedichek / Tara Sobel4-6, 5-7
2025-07-23vs 12 Westwood-FarneyLost 01
L#1 DoublesMegan Lloyd / Carolyn Moncure vs Kristy Seredni / Holly Martin1-6, 6-4, 0-1
2025-07-11vs 9 Raintree EvansWon 10
W#1 DoublesMegan Lloyd / Carolyn Moncure vs Lisa Harmon / Catherine Fallin6-4, 1-6, 1-0
2025-06-27vs 8 MTC HilbertWon 10
W#2 DoublesCarolyn Moncure / Megan Lloyd vs Lindsey Scammell / Robin Meyer6-4, 6-0
2025-06-25vs 4 TDC SpillareLost 01
L#2 DoublesMegan Lloyd / Carolyn Moncure vs Sharon Moorefield / Erica Bragg3-6, 6-6
2025-06-18Lost 01
L#3 DoublesMona Stahling / Carolyn Moncure vs Kimberly Jones / Amy McGlynn6-7, 2-6
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 Richmond Adult 40 & Over Weekday 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 3.15 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.

3.28
Carolyn Moncure
usually #1 Doubles 50%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 3.5
3.27
Rebecca Schwartz
published
3.25
Shannon Foster
published
3.25
Mandy Setliff
published
3.23
Corrine Cooper
published 3.5
3.18
Megan Lloyd
published
3.15
Lisa Penny
published
3.09
Barbara Portanova
published 3.5
3.03
Mona Stahling
published
3.02
Christine Martine
published 3.5
2.88
Pam Koch
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.

Megan Lloyd + Shannon Foster2351% games−10.4% vs expected
Mona Stahling + Lisa Penny123 matchesnot enough data
Lisa Penny + Carolyn Moncure123 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.

3.5
Carolyn Moncure
43W–66L career · 6 lines in 2025
2%92%6%
3.28
Rebecca Schwartz
9W–18L career · no lines in 2025
3%92%5%
3.27
Shannon Foster
15W–11L career · no lines in 2025
4%93%4%
3.25
Mandy Setliff
5W–5L career · no lines in 2025
4%93%3%
3.25
3.5
Corrine Cooper
7W–9L career · no lines in 2025
5%92%3%
3.23
Megan Lloyd
4W–5L career · no lines in 2025
10%89%1%
3.18
Lisa Penny
5W–7L career · no lines in 2025
14%86%1%
3.15
3.5
Barbara Portanova
4W–6L career · no lines in 2025
25%75%<1%
3.09
Mona Stahling
3W–11L career · no lines in 2025
40%60%<1%
3.03
3.5
Christine Martine
4W–10L career · type A · no lines in 2025
43%57%<1%
3.02
Pam Koch
2W–7L career · no lines in 2025
80%20%<1%
2.88

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.