Teams

Hermitage Yablonski / Lines

2022 Richmond Tri-Level 18 & Over Weeknight · Richmond Tri-Level 3.5, 3.0, 2.5 Women

16 players · average NTRP 3.43 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule4 played
2022-11-02vs Westwood Wilcox Whackers - WWWWon 10
W#1 DoublesKathy Harcum / AMY LINES vs Cherie Warfield / Julie Farney6-2, 4-6, 1-0
2022-10-26vs Ridgetop PughWon 10
W#1 DoublesStephanie Yablonski / Abbey Orski vs Pamela Hutzler / Martha Prideaux6-1, 6-0
2022-09-21vs Twin Hickory YuWon 10
W#1 DoublesAMY LINES / Abbey Orski vs Lisa Frazier / Jennifer Schwarz6-1, 6-4
2022-09-07vs Woodlake CabralWon 10
W#1 DoublesStephanie Yablonski / AMY LINES vs Stacey Cabral / Tami Chalker6-4, 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 Richmond Tri-Level 3.5, 3.0, 2.5 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 15 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 100% · published 4
3.84
Abbey Orski
published 4
Betsy Kersey
published 4
3.63
Kathleen Crotty
published
3.53
Lauren McKetta
published
3.38
Stephanie Yablonski
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published 3.5
3.28
Susan Poulos
published
3.22
Kathy Harcum
published
3.15
Lauren Hutcheson
published
3.15
Samantha McLean
published
3.04
Kimberly Ross
published
2.92
Stacey Haug
published
2.68
Alexia Gerczak
published 3
2.67
Kristen Wood
published
2.61
Alison Chesson
published 3
2.23
Beth Stuckey
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.

Stephanie Yablonski + AMY LINES18170% games+20.2% vs expected
Stacey Haug + Lauren Hutcheson3254% games+4.5% vs expected
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 · 3 lines in 2022
<1%58%42%
3.97
4
Abbey Orski
15W–10L career · no lines in 2022
<1%89%11%
3.84
4
Betsy Kersey
1W–0L career · no lines in 2022
not enough data
Kathleen Crotty
19W–11L career · no lines in 2022
15%85%<1%
3.63
Lauren McKetta
13W–2L career · no lines in 2022
<1%41%59%
3.53
3.5
Stephanie Yablonski
124W–88L career · 2 lines in 2022
<1%82%17%
3.38
Susan Poulos
7W–3L career · no lines in 2022
2%94%4%
3.28
Kathy Harcum
8W–13L career · no lines in 2022
4%94%2%
3.22
Lauren Hutcheson
21W–14L career · no lines in 2022
<1%12%88%
3.15
Samantha McLean
9W–4L career · no lines in 2022
12%87%<1%
3.15
Kimberly Ross
11W–5L career · no lines in 2022
37%63%<1%
3.04
Stacey Haug
20W–20L career · no lines in 2022
<1%74%26%
2.92
3
Alexia Gerczak
8W–12L career · no lines in 2022
8%91%1%
2.68
Kristen Wood
0W–9L career · no lines in 2022
10%90%1%
2.67
3
Alison Chesson
12W–22L career · no lines in 2022
19%81%<1%
2.61
2.5
Beth Stuckey
10W–5L career · no lines in 2022
0%98%2%
2.23

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.