Teams

C4 Hermitage Bergeron

2023 Richmond Adult 18 & Over Weekend · Richmond Adult 18 & Over 3.5 Women

15 players · average NTRP 3.88 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule5 played
2023-06-03vs C2 Bon Air BalsamoWon 10
W#2 DoublesAMY LINES / Carrie Boyd vs Lynette Villadelgado / Debra Flight6-1, 6-2
2023-05-20vs C3 ACAC PfeifferWon 10
W#1 DoublesAbbey Orski / AMY LINES vs Neki Grant / Nikki Callaghan6-1, 6-1
2023-05-06vs C6 SCC SchwartzLost 01
L#2 DoublesKathleen Crotty / Stephanie Yablonski vs Stacey Gray / Becky McNeer6-0, 3-6, 0-1
L#1 DoublesJanine Hoffer / AMY LINES vs Emma Moredock / Meredith Schwartz4-6, 6-2, 0-1
2023-04-15vs C7 Southampton BrownLost 01
L#2 SinglesStephanie Yablonski vs Windy Campbell6-7, 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 18 & 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 3.48 estimated across 12 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 33%, also #2 Singles 33% · published 4
3.84
Abbey Orski
published 4
3.82
Liz Charles
published
Betsy Kersey
published 4
3.63
Kathleen Crotty
published
3.54
Joanna Bergeron
published
3.48
Mary Beth Scott
published
3.46
Janine Hoffer
published
3.38
Stephanie Yablonski
usually #2 Singles 50%, also #2 Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.29
Sarah Martin
published
3.22
Kathy Harcum
published
3.15
Lauren Hutcheson
published
3.01
Kirsten Knull
published
Kim Magnano
published
Tissa Nasta
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
Kathleen Crotty + Liz Charles213 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
AMY LINES
220W–87L career · 6 lines in 2023
<1%58%42%
3.97
4
Abbey Orski
15W–10L career · no lines in 2023
<1%89%11%
3.84
Liz Charles
5W–2L career · no lines in 2023
1%91%8%
3.82
4
Betsy Kersey
1W–0L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Kathleen Crotty
19W–11L career · no lines in 2023
15%85%<1%
3.63
Joanna Bergeron
18W–10L career · no lines in 2023
38%62%<1%
3.54
Mary Beth Scott
13W–4L career · no lines in 2023
<1%55%45%
3.48
Janine Hoffer
2W–1L career · no lines in 2023
62%38%<1%
3.46
3.5
Stephanie Yablonski
124W–88L career · 2 lines in 2023
<1%82%17%
3.38
Sarah Martin
15W–8L career · no lines in 2023
1%94%5%
3.29
Kathy Harcum
8W–13L career · no lines in 2023
4%94%2%
3.22
Lauren Hutcheson
21W–14L career · no lines in 2023
<1%12%88%
3.15
Kirsten Knull
4W–4L career · no lines in 2023
46%54%<1%
3.01
Kim Magnano
2W–0L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Tissa Nasta
2W–4L career · no lines in 2023
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.