Teams

Willow Oaks Sampson

2021 Richmond Working Women · Working Women 7.0

10 players · average NTRP 3.75 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule6 played
2021-05-17vs Bon Air RhodesWon 10
W#1 Female DoublesLucia O'Connell / Laura Granger vs Nancy Metz / Pamela Blackburn6-0, 6-1
2021-05-13vs CCV BealeLost 01
L#2 Female DoublesZinie Sampson / Lucia O'Connell vs Thornton Lambert / Melanie Cross2-6, 5-7
2021-05-10vs MAC ScottSplit 11
L#1 Female DoublesSallie Mayer / Mansi Shah vs Susan Greenspoon / Deirdre Vaughan2-6, 7-5, 0-1
W#3 Female DoublesLucia O'Connell / Kristin Hamlin vs N/A6-0, 6-0
2021-04-26Won 10
W#2 Female DoublesSallie Mayer / Beth Kelly vs Pamela Albrecht / Margaret Nuckols-Currence6-0, 6-4
2021-04-19vs Raintree EntersSplit 11
W#1 Female DoublesSquig Moore / Lucia O'Connell vs Suzanne Spadafora / Christine Martine6-2, 4-2
L#2 Female DoublesSallie Mayer / Beth Kelly vs Brenda Tyson / Kathy Flowers3-6, 2-6
2021-04-12vs Woodlake HannonWon 10
W#1 Female DoublesSquig Moore / Lucia O'Connell vs Stacy Wiseman / Rosie Ortiz6-4, 6-3
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 Working Women 7.0 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 3.33 estimated across 9 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.

3.92
Laura Granger
published 4.5
3.92
Peyton Curdts
published
3.71
Lucia O'Connell
usually #1 Female Doubles 60%, also #3 Female Doubles 20% · published
3.43
Mansi Shah
published
3.36
Sallie Mayer
usually #2 Female Doubles 67%, also #1 Female Doubles 33% · published
3.11
Meredith Miles
published
3.07
Zinie Sampson
published
2.81
Kristin Hamlin
published
2.66
Beth Kelly
published 3
Squig Moore
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.

Laura Granger + Sallie Mayer303 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
Laura Granger
131W–99L career · no lines in 2021
72%28%<1%
3.92
Peyton Curdts
3W–1L career · no lines in 2021
<1%74%26%
3.92
Lucia O'Connell
101W–70L career · 5 lines in 2021
6%93%1%
3.71
Mansi Shah
4W–2L career · no lines in 2021
71%29%<1%
3.43
Sallie Mayer
85W–101L career · 6 lines in 2021
<1%86%14%
3.36
Meredith Miles
10W–7L career · no lines in 2021
21%79%<1%
3.11
Zinie Sampson
15W–17L career · no lines in 2021
<1%29%71%
3.07
Kristin Hamlin
17W–20L career · no lines in 2021
1%92%7%
2.81
3
Beth Kelly
4W–9L career · no lines in 2021
11%88%<1%
2.66
Squig Moore
1W–2L career · no lines in 2021
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.