Teams

Westwood Sharrar

2021 Richmond Working Women · Working Women 6.0

13 players · average NTRP 3.57 / VIRGINIA

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2021-05-24vs RCC ArmstrongWon 10
W#1 Female DoublesCarlyle Walek / Kristy Seredni vs Penny Lobred / Amy Wozniak7-5, 7-5
2021-05-10vs Hermitage HardestyWon 10
W#2 Female DoublesKatie Gerecke / Cody Nystrom vs Brittany Nichols / Monica Walsh6-1, 7-5
2021-04-12vs Raintree FosterWon 10
W#2 Female DoublesElizabeth Keith / Carlyle Walek vs Shannon Foster / Molly Smith5-7, 6-2, 1-0
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 6.0 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 3.20 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.

3.68
Bobbie Lou Oley
published 4
3.56
Katie Gerecke
usually #2 Female Doubles 100% · published 4
3.52
Kristy Seredni
published 3.5
3.45
Carlyle Walek
usually #2 Female Doubles 50%, also #1 Female Doubles 50% · published 3.5
3.29
Elizabeth Keith
published 3.5
Cody Nystrom
published 3.5
3.09
Meredith Berger
published
3.06
Jenny Sharrar
published
3.04
Kindra Kirkeby
published
2.97
Sara Sloman
published
2.92
Samantha Wetzel
published
2.65
Nada Golden
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.

Kristy Seredni + Carlyle Walek433654% games+1.1% vs expected
Kristy Seredni + Bobbie Lou Oley404 matchesnot enough data
Carlyle Walek + Bobbie Lou Oley303 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
Bobbie Lou Oley
139W–64L career · no lines in 2021
8%91%1%
3.68
4
Katie Gerecke
110W–125L career · 1 line in 2021
34%66%<1%
3.56
3.5
Kristy Seredni
150W–89L career · no lines in 2021
<1%43%57%
3.52
3.5
Carlyle Walek
129W–89L career · 2 lines in 2021
<1%66%34%
3.45
3.5
Elizabeth Keith
4W–5L career · no lines in 2021
1%93%5%
3.29
3.5
Cody Nystrom
0W–1L career · no lines in 2021
not enough data
Meredith Berger
7W–3L career · no lines in 2021
25%75%<1%
3.09
Jenny Sharrar
16W–10L career · no lines in 2021
<1%31%69%
3.06
Kindra Kirkeby
17W–6L career · no lines in 2021
<1%39%61%
3.04
Sara Sloman
16W–9L career · no lines in 2021
<1%60%40%
2.97
Samantha Wetzel
19W–13L career · no lines in 2021
<1%72%28%
2.92
3
Ashley Sommardahl
7W–8L career · no lines in 2021
13%87%<1%
2.65
Nada Golden
1W–1L 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.