Teams

KRA Hauk / Edens

2023 Richmond Adult 18 & Over Weekday Women · Richmond Adult 18 & Over 4.0 Women

14 players · average NTRP 3.89 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule8 played
2023-06-16vs Westwood HauseWon 21
W#1 DoublesLauren Hauk / Emily Edens vs Beth Lane / Barbara Hassett6-3, 6-2
W#2 DoublesDebbie Messmer / Denise Terrell vs Megan Alwine / Liza Hause6-4, 7-6
L#3 DoublesAnnie Gushman / Sara Winterhoff vs Alison Wayland / Ellie StJohn4-6, 3-6
2023-06-13vs TDC CarlyleWon 21
W#1 DoublesDebbie Messmer / Denise Terrell vs Lucinda Stuckey / Michele Smith6-1, 6-7, 1-0
L#1 SinglesSara Winterhoff vs Lauren Duke3-6, 4-6
W#2 DoublesEmily Edens / Katie Gerecke vs Nicole Wyman / Rhonda Underwood6-4, 5-7, 1-0
2023-06-08vs Raintree MorrisWon 20
W#1 DoublesDaniela Otto / Denise Terrell vs Catherine Fallin / Lisa Harmon4-6, 6-4, 1-0
W#2 DoublesDebbie Messmer / Sarah Dickinson vs Teresa Lancaster / Robin Eudailey6-0, 6-0
2023-06-06vs Kings Charter PurmasirSplit 22
W#1 DoublesLauren Hauk / Sarah Dickinson vs Christine Polk / Rochelle Purmasir1-6, 6-2, 1-0
W#2 DoublesKatie Gerecke / Katherine Faraci vs Melissa Allen / Holly Miles7-5, 4-6, 1-0
L#2 SinglesSara Winterhoff vs Katherine Lawrence1-6, 3-6
L#3 DoublesDaniela Otto / Carlyle Walek vs Stephanie Williams / Pamla Dietz0-6, 6-1, 1-0
2023-06-04vs WOCC StallsLost 12
W#1 DoublesLauren Hauk / Sarah Dickinson vs Laura Granger / Natalie Dunton6-1, 6-0
L#2 DoublesDebbie Messmer / Daniela Otto vs Anne Elles / Jessica Morton1-3
L#2 SinglesKatherine Fleck vs Jennifer Smith0-6, 1-6
2023-06-01vs Burkwood RowSplit 22
W#1 DoublesLauren Hauk / Sarah Dickinson vs Melissa Stewart / Lindsey O'Kane6-3, 7-6
W#2 DoublesEmily Edens / Katie Gerecke vs Theresa Hughes / Nancy Row6-0, 6-1
L#2 SinglesKatherine Fleck vs Ann Maitland-Lewis1-6, 2-6
L#3 DoublesCarlyle Walek / Annie Gushman vs Jennifer Hughes / Karen Matthews4-6, 3-6
2023-05-25vs Woodlake RitterLost 12
L#1 DoublesDebbie Messmer / Katie Gerecke vs Ana Adkins / Brooke Teefey3-6, 6-7
L#1 SinglesSara Winterhoff vs Dana Fath3-6, 2-6
W#2 DoublesLauren Hauk / Emily Edens vs Greet France / Kelley Glen6-0, 6-3
2023-05-22vs CCV AveryLost 04
L#1 DoublesLauren Hauk / Denise Terrell vs Courtney Harper / Suzanne Morris6-2, 2-6, 0-1
L#2 DoublesKatie Gerecke / Daniela Otto vs Alison Avery / Susan Trigg2-6, 0-6
L#2 SinglesSarah Dickinson vs Melissa Mauck2-6, 2-6
L#3 DoublesCarlyle Walek / Heather Chamberlain vs Nancy Young / Jennifer Bencks3-6, 4-6
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 4.0 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 3.61 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.

4.24
Lauren Hauk
usually #1 Doubles 83%, also #2 Doubles 17% · published 4.5
3.90
Denise Terrell
published 4
3.82
Debbie Messmer
usually #2 Doubles 60%, also #1 Doubles 40% · published 4
3.73
Sarah Dickinson
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Singles 17% · published 4
3.61
Katie Gerecke
usually #2 Doubles 80%, also #1 Doubles 20% · published 4
3.58
Carlyle Walek
usually #3 Doubles 70%, also #1 Doubles 20% · published 3.5
3.54
Daniela Otto
usually #2 Doubles 50%, also #3 Doubles 25% · published 4
3.45
Charlotte Shirey
published 3.5
3.31
Katherine Fleck
usually #2 Singles 67%, also #1 Singles 17% · published
3.29
Sara Winterhoff
usually #1 Singles 46%, also #2 Singles 27% · published
Annie Gushman
published 3.5
3.23
Wendy Daniel
published
Emily Edens
published
Sarah Nicholas
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.

Katherine Fleck + Sara Winterhoff141645% games−4.7% vs expected
Lauren Hauk + Sarah Dickinson6554% gamesnot enough data
Katie Gerecke + Sarah Dickinson4445% gamesnot enough data
Daniela Otto + Debbie Messmer033 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.

4.5
Lauren Hauk
67W–28L career · 6 lines in 2023
5%92%3%
4.24
4
Denise Terrell
21W–15L career · no lines in 2023
<1%75%25%
3.90
4
Debbie Messmer
233W–155L career · 5 lines in 2023
1%89%10%
3.82
4
Sarah Dickinson
47W–43L career · 6 lines in 2023
5%92%3%
3.73
4
Katie Gerecke
109W–125L career · 5 lines in 2023
21%78%<1%
3.61
3.5
Carlyle Walek
129W–87L career · 10 lines in 2023
<1%28%72%
3.58
4
Daniela Otto
117W–203L career · 4 lines in 2023
38%62%<1%
3.54
3.5
Charlotte Shirey
6W–1L career · no lines in 2023
<1%65%35%
3.45
Katherine Fleck
64W–60L career · 6 lines in 2023
1%90%9%
3.31
Sara Winterhoff
97W–83L career · 11 lines in 2023
2%91%7%
3.29
3.5
Annie Gushman
1W–2L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Wendy Daniel
15W–17L career · no lines in 2023
5%92%3%
3.23
Emily Edens
1W–1L career · no lines in 2023
not enough data
Sarah Nicholas
0W–1L 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.